These types of comments infuriate me.

This is never going to be a straightforward debate as in a perfect world, there would never be a need to abort. I know women who had terminations as teenagers who are now in their 50s and have never fully got over it. I also know women who used terminations as a method of birth control, with seemingly no emotional issue whatsoever.

On the other side of things- I live as the result of a failed back street abortion. I’m glad it didn’t work, and so was my mum. She was 19 and terrified, but once I was born, and once she’d taken charge and left my grandparents’ home, it worked out.

Not every situation is like that, I know- I’m an adoptive parent and I also work with very vulnerable children.

Nothing is ever black and white.

Just as women on here often say that as soon as a man has unprotected sex he should be prepared to become a father- so should a woman be prepared to become a mother, if that sex is consensual. We can’t apply double standards, surely?

But, often there are circumstances where life is in danger, sex is not consensual, emotional and mental health is at risk...

So again, nothing is black and white, and where so many shades of grey exist, it is impossible to make judgment.

Ok, thank you for making your view clearer, I understand you better now. I can see it makes sense on one level, though personally I would suggest that it's obvious weakness is that if suffering we acknowledge is the only suffering that can negatively affect society, then that's a good incentive to hide lots of suffering away, which I'm sure could be used in very bad ways indeed.

But this is getting very philosophical now, and you've given me the courtesy of a full answer, so I'm quite happy to leave this one alone for now.

" your alternative there appears to be that we don't kill born babies because it could lead to a desensitization that could lead to the killing of others. There is an answer to that, but I'm not sure it's actually what you meant and I don't want to misrepresent you."

Thanks for not wanting to misrepresent me. You're not too far off.

A society that allowed the murder of babies for whatever reason would indeed be violent and evil. The reason it would be evil is, however, not in my view because of the inherent value of a human life, but because the society would be promoting violence and suffering of people. That is, I don't believe that humans can ever witness the murder of a baby and not see that as violence and suffering caused by one human to another. So by allowing it, people would come to think that it's fine to cause violence and suffering to people generally.

However, for an abortion of a foetus at least early in pregnancy, I believe the opposite is true. The abortion itself, in the eyes of many, does not obviously cause violence or suffering to the fetus because it is too early to appear to be alive and/or suffer. And indeed the abortion obviously prevents suffering of the mother who does not want to be pregnant. Overall less obvious suffering occurs so society is not in any way promoting violence. It is not unreasonable to assume that the belief that the foetus does not suffer in any obvious way could eventually become a general belief (it is so already in some places). There are therefore no knock-on effects in such a society as there would be for murder of born children. It is seen by most as a simple medical procedure which in general helps to relieve suffering, not cause it.

I do think that some forms of late term abortion can and do promote violence and suffering or at least is a trade off in that there is clearly a dead child involved that can suffer and feel pain, and that would be weighed against the alternative suffering of the mother. The line is basically where most people would agree "that thing is alive and can suffer". I think most reasonable abortion laws recognize there is a difference between early and later term abortions for this reason.

Yes, abortion has no exact analogies and is a unique situation. No woman should be forced to terminate directly or indirectly (for example, through lack of resources necessary to birth and raise a child), but equally, no woman should be forced to birth a child she does not want. I'm also happy to accept that 'does not want' means simply that and not only 'cannot afford' or 'cannot cope with' etc. I'm happy to accept that abortion means ending a potential human life and think that given the unique situation that gestating inside a woman's body presents then this should be considered differently from ending any other human life. Free, safe accessible abortion on demand as early as possible and as late as necessary is, for me, the most fundamental tenet of my feminism in terms of the social and legal rights that I think should be available to women.

Quite. There isn't an easy, tidy solution to this at all, and I tire of those who also claim the pro life label acting as if there is. Don't get me wrong, I used to understand the stark imperative of the life of foetus over the rights of the mother arguments, but I've seen it employed too many times by people who have no investment in trying to tackle why a woman would think abortion was necessary for her, other than her desire to kill which is so obviously rubbish I am stunned people say it.

I see no reason at all why pro life and pro choice people in the centre cannot work together to make abortion rare as the famous slogan suggests. I do know, thankfully, pro life people who do step up for women with crisis and any other kind of pregnancy, with no judgement whatsoever.

I can't work comfortably with those who campaign for abortion to be seen as just neutral, but I understand that's just a huge difference in approach to the world, and even with those people, I am sure I could find common cause if their focus was a woman's autonomy and freedom, which it usually is.

So yes, legally speaking, though I do wince to write it, the law as it stands in the UK is probably the best compromise. I have much wider ambitions to lift the status of women overall, ease access to contraception (shh, don't tell the pope) and maybe even force a culture shift so that it becomes a man's responsibility primarily (half formed thought so far), stop the subtle scorn and disadvantage women are subject to upon becoming pregnant or giving birth and being designated 'mum'. Make it so that idea that a woman would have to choose between education or pregnancy is ridiculous. There's so much that can be done. I know abortion won't ever not happen. But if I can contribute to a society where no woman ever has one because of a variation of "I just had no other option." then, I'll be ok with that.

HRTFT but I did feel a bit like an incubator when pregnant. Not a very good one, as I smoked :( but that's what I felt like. At the same time as feeling like I was living in a strange world where my body had been taken over and was hosting a parasite. The second time around I didn't feel the 'parasite' thing, as I'd seen the result of the previous pregnancy, but I don't think that it's that strange to view yourself as an incubator.

I agree with what you say FloralBunting about working to remove the structural disadvantages that mean women seek abortion out of desperation. I would add to that the idea that penetrative sex is the only possible way to have sex and the pressures on people to have sex/the objectification of women etc and the general sexualisation of our culture.

Not that I am saying people should not have sex or be intimate, but penetrative sex is so phallo-centric (not saying women do not enjoy it too!) and women bear the risks. It is almost like abortion takes the responsibilty away for men, fertility is still women’s responsibilty to resolve just that now the expectation is that if you are not in a good place to have a child, you should have an abortion.

I think in this country the present law works just about right, it has been in place for just over 50 years and relies on a consensus if you like between women, doctors and politicians to remain in place. I am a pacifist so I would rather no abortion at all, but the reality is that women and foetuses would die in the absence of abortion and the structural disadvantages that women face would not suddenly disappear.

But of course that leaves us in an ethically difficult position, of course it does. Because as a society I think we should value life and the presence and prevalence of abortion as a solution to unwanted pregnancies devalues it.

Just as forcing a woman to carry a pregnancy to term devalues her. So there is no ethically sound solution, aside from abstinence, just a negotiation of various imperatives.

Sorry, FWRLurker, I want to respond to you there, but the break in posts has obscures your point a little, I think, and I don't want to answer what you haven't said.

I appreciate that not everyone agrees with the inherent moral value of a life perspective, but your alternative there appears to be that we don't kill born babies because it could lead to a desensitization that could lead to the killing of others. There is an answer to that, but I'm not sure it's actually what you meant and I don't want to misrepresent you.

Whoops

Killing an infant clearly causes suffering and pain. So a society that allows such an action would be less harmonious as people would come to see that sort of action as OK. It could easily move to older children, even adults.

On the other hand a woman going in for a procedure that ends a pregnancy is not something that obviously causes Suffering and in fact it clearly prevents it. So a society that allows early term abortion would be more harmonious than one that forces women to carry unwanted pregnancies to term.

I might come across as quite radical here but a major reason I don’t have an issue with abortion is that I do not believe that humans or any other creature has what is often called “inherent moral value”.

So when we look at the difference between abortion of an early embryo or fetus, versus murder of a child just born, we don’t make arguments about the fetus welfare per se. We make arguments about what kind of society that action being commonplace would bring about. Murder of babies, humans basically all agree, is an evil action. A society that allowed this to be commonplace would

So why is

Some good points/food for thought.

For me, it's not a balance between potential/comprehension. I think me and Quack were just coming at it from different angles.

I'm totally unresolved on the issue too and fully aware that my 'potential' point could be applied to sperm/eggs too if one wanted to take it to the extreme (e.g. as soon as one is pregnant there is the potential for an autonomous life).

I'm not really sure why the balance is between 'potential' and 'comprehension'. This is probably the crux of my earlier point about arguments made about the unborn that would sound utterly horrible if applied to people who have been born.

People shouldn't be valued solely for their 'potential' future - who defines potential? And who's to say that child who lives mere minutes after being born hasn't done something amazing for her parents just by being born and taking a breath?

And sure, as far as we know, a foetus in utero has no more self awareness of 'What life is' than it does a few minutes after it's born. In fact, my mentally disabled brother has precious little grasp of common notions of potential or self awareness, but there are people who would argue that means his life should be forfeit, and lots of (in my view) right minded people see that as a disgrace.

I know I'm pretty peculiar in pro life circles, because I don't campaign for abortion to be banned, and I obviously don't think you can force a woman to stay pregnant. But I'm not pro-life because of indefinite notions about potential or consciousness. I'm pro life because life. I think you need a cast iron reason to kill someone else, and the only one that cuts it for me is self defence, which is why the forced donation argument nearly wins it but not quite.

Gah. I wish I could resolve this.

It hAs never been 9 months so..

I understand your point too, Quack, but ultimately you were also a foetus at one point, with no comprehension of life.

What I'm talking about is the loss of potential.

I can see no logical basis for suggesting that abortion isn’t the ‘best outcome’ for any foetus. It loses nothing.

It loses everything it could've been.

Think of all your many life experiences and then imagine if you had been aborted - that's what you would have lost.

I'm not pro life or whatever the term is, but it seems to me that many people seek to rationalise their choices when ultimately it is just picking your best interests over that of the baby (which is human nature and understandable). But why not call a spade a spade?

The individual that the foetus would likely have turned into is an entirely independent person whose life would probably continue long after their mother had died of old age. What is sacrificed is the existence that every one of us experiences - each and every second of it.

Yeah, I don't think either option is emotionally problem free. In Gcng's case, it's crystal clear that the counselling she received was entirely inadequate and that would have been resolved by better counselling, which would have enabled her to make a choice she would have been happier with.

In my own situation, my first abortion I didn't regret at all, or even think about much. My second was traumatic. But abortion regret is very personal and not really the strongest ground on which to critique abortion, because there will always be plenty of women who do not regret their abortion at all.

I think when we enter the realm of 'I would feel better if I had an abortion than I would if I knew I had a child that I had no contact with', we've gone into hypotheticals based on how we imagine we might feel, which is an equally weak argument for or against something.

Qcng I don’t think you should be villified for having an abortion either to be perfectly honest. Problem is I “feel” forcing women into carrying a child to term is abhorrent and I feel terminating unborn children is equally abhorrent.

We should however have compassion for anyone who is or has been in your shoes. I hate to say this as abortion really does have no exact analogies and everyone seems super keen to toss their own onto the pile. Way I see it is if you see a child in the path of an oncoming car, and in the moment you think the risk is too great and you don’t jump to push them out of the way there isn’t really any negative judgement, cos honestly how many people would?

Thing is bringing a child into the world IS an act of heroism in its own way, there is risk of lifelong injury and even death (same as with that car!), yet perversely its an expectation placed on women, where you can actually look foward to negative judgement if you bring a child into this world in less than ideal circumstances!

Men in this equation are like bystanders who can shout “save that child” as loud as they like, but are simply too far away to push the kid out of harms way themselves or affect the outcome in any way.

I know you feel guilty but honestly as pro-life as I am you’ll get no judgement from me, I’ve never been in your shoes. What I hope to offer is a little sympathy, empathy and understanding. I know my analogy sucks but it’s the best I can come up with.

"This falls into the rare 'extreme' category." - well, no not really at all. What I was describing are the risks that all pregnant women face. It's not possible to know in advance if any of those will accent any one specific woman. So every woman forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy takes those risks.

Also, even with lots of extra support, having a baby adopted isn't without its own risks and issues. It can have the same life changing effects that you describe that stem from your decision. It's not a better solution for all women. It's a different option that might be ok for some women and definitely wouldn't be ok for others.

No woman should be forced to remain pregnant. Likewise, women who are pregnant with an unwanted child shouldn't be vilified for wanting to give it up for adoption as an alternative to abortion.
There should be a system that provides for birth-adoption women.

Well of course forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy is abhorrent. This falls into the rare 'extreme' category.
Especially if the female is underage, been raped, prostituted, at risk in any way for continuing the pregnancy, chronic alcoholic with a risk of FAS, there are many circumstances where abortion would be preferable to birth-adoption.

But some circumstances adoption should simply be suggested or encouraged where it's a realistic option.
I was basically amazed that no medical expert through my entire ordeal of having an abortion (I was in a situation of borderline homelessness) advised maybe I would be able to put the baby up for adoption. I made my choice, and accept that but there was very little discussion it was just off you go then and under anaesthetic you go. I've basically grieved ever since. I really regret it.