US anti-abortion group lobbying Westminster

Alliance Defending Freedom gets 1864 law reinstated in Arizona - effectively a total ban on abortion if this law is enforced.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-68774959

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/04/07/abortion-decriminalise-poll-commons-vote-diana-johnson/

And so it begins.

A fetus becomes a person at birth, not before.

A few points here:

1. The question of when a human being becomes a person is not in any way simple or obvious. It's a very complex ethical issue, and while there are some reasons you could argue surviving independently is the right approach, there are also some real arguments against it. There are good arguments for choosing other times as well. One of the most significant ones, historically, is that it's being a human being that makes one a "person" no matter what stage of life.

This isn't a question that depends at all on the nature of the mother, it's a question that has to be addressed before it's possible to talk about how the rights of the mother interact with the rights (or lack thereof) of the fetus.

2. It's also possible to have rights that aren't connected to being a "person" as such. for example we have rights for animals under the law, and people who argue that animal rights should be based on self-awareness, or the possibility of experiencing pain. Similarly, there are people who argue that a fetus has rights like this, rather than human rights as a person under the law.

These questions are the substance of the whole disagreement, and saying "a person is someone who can survive independently so there is nothing to disagree about" is pretty much the definition of hand-waving away a problem.

Most people would not say that feminism means giving women any possible "right" that could be claimed. There is no call I have ever heard, for example, to give women the right of life or death over her children outside the womb - which is not a crazy idea, such rights have existed in some places historically for mothers and/or fathers. We all understand that rights, be they human rights, rights of citizens, animals rights, etc, are complex and require balancing in many cases.

The main characteristic of people who think there should be some limits on abortion - which btw is most people, very few support unlimited abortion rights - is that they believe the fetus has some kind of moral status. That might be for philosophical reasons, for spiritual reasons, or for scientific reasons, and it can be conceptualized in a lot of differernt ways which lead to differernt views on what the nature of that moral status is and when it applies.

But a person's idea of the moral status of the fetus isn't generally defined by their view of the moral status of women, any more that a person's view of the moral status of cows is defined by their view of farmers. They are separate questions. It's based on its own merits.

Why would you expect they'd all then see balancing those things in the law the same way?

Its not a sidestep, its very simple. The State can't force you to donate a kidney because your body belongs to you. You have bodily autonomy.
A fetus becomes a person when it can survive independently, outside of the mothers body.

People are never going to be able to really sidestep the question of what is the moral status of a human fetus, which is biologically a human being, is, and how to manage that in law in relation to the moral status of the mother.

Attempts to try and do so by treating abortion as a rights issue for women just creates a kind of moral deadlock that can never be resolved.

And tbh I think treating right to abortion as a defining feminist issue will always weaken women's rights discussions, because women are as likely as men (or even more likely) to see this as a significant ethical problem, despite the insistence that somehow this is something men impose on women. So you immediately cut off a group of women from the discourse around women's rights.

Forced birthing is not a feminist position, and the majority of late terminations are because of catastrophic birth defects or a threat to the woman's health.

BPAS have successfully campaigned for exclusion zones outside abortion clinics, twice, and twice they have been shelved without explanation. A decade ago most of us thought women's rights was a settled issue. I'm not taking anything for granted.

Being a feminist and being anti-abortion are compatible as they are in my view two different issues.

I believe that a once conceived a foetus is alive and has a right to live - tragically many do not survive as rates of miscarriage are high, that is nature. I do not believe that we have the right to decide upon the fate of the unborn child and believe that they have the right to live.

As a feminist I believe in equality, equal right and opportunities.

Men cannot get pregnant being pregnant is uniquely female - that is a fact of nature. Aborting the unborn child does to bring or influence equality. I understand the view that women believe they should have control over their body and be free to decide whether they want to end a pregnancy but to me they are ending a life and I take the view that once created that unborn child exists.

I respect other people's point of view and know that my view is a minority view. I am also aware that the law is not going to change to outlaw abortion - I would like the abortion laws changed so that the time limit is reduced, I think that given the survival rates of pre-term pregnancies this more important now than ever.

I see.

Well they would not be the only person to call themselves a feminist whilst having bizarre anti woman views.

A previous poster did

Does anyone take that stance and consider themselves a feminist though?

I understand why people are anti-abortion. I just don’t understand how you can have that stance and still think yourself a feminist.

Really sorry to hear you were criticised for a medically necessary procedure. I had no idea there were people in the UK who are that extreme!

Ive sadly heard stories like this or worse from the USA- women denied induction after the foetus had almost certainly died, 'just in case' it all miraculously turned out OK, thereby putting the womens lives at risk from sepsis.

It's not my politics but I can understand why people are anti-abortion. Personally I think it falls apart pretty quickly once you decide women can and should be able to make their own choices though. I also think there is often (not always, but often) a pattern in that there's never any support offered to the mother to stay with her child, which I think can be viewed as anti-women and children.

I do also think that there are points in pregnancy at which society doesn't and won't accept abortion, and that advances in premature baby care and survival chances mean that the upper limit here will be debated at some point in time. When, I don't know, but it seems inevitable.

I also think the move to have miscarriages recognised in some way - while understandable from the perspective of the woman (and her partner) - is not a move that sits well with keeping what we have. I rather more imagine that as being vulnerable to hijacking the abortion position here than anything else. Mostly as it's not an area many would have their eye on.

Rights are hard won and easily lost. We must be vigilant.

I don’t understand your comment Resistor, but I shall rephrase mine.

I cannot fathom how anyone can think of herself as a feminist but be anti-abortion. I can see nothing at all in banning abortion that supports women. Or have I missed something? How can being anti-abortion be pro-women? Perhaps it’s me who’s not thinking deeply enough to wrap my brain around that…? You can have preferences for your own choices, but wanting to control those of other women is another matter. Keen to understand the thinking there.

They also don't care what happens to the foetus after its born - if they did they would be helping adoption charities and organisations working to help poverty stricken families.

But no, all the effort goes into taking away women's rights.

Please stop using their language. Do not use the 'A' word: Call the debate one of Forced Childbearing. Use 'termination' and 'prevention' as the description for procedures to stop unwanted childbearing.

Forced Childbearing is only one among many ways to use someone's body, against their will. R pe is a great favourite, particularly within the home.

The resulting impregnation of women and girl children doesn't matter much, in the traditional mindsets, and therefore legislation, made mainly by men , for men. Males get the 'fun' and the 'sub-humans', i.e. females, get the enforced childbearing. Then, the females can be left to worry about feeding and caring for these unwanted burdens. Men can leave.

Enslavement of the whole person is another tradition. (Again, for males, keeping women and children servile is popular, easy and convenient) This has the backing of many religions. Some religious leaders and texts also include approval of keeping slaves, if they are from the wrong religion.

And now, people could be captured to have their organs forcibly removed, when a rich person wants a living donor.... Why not, if humans don't have any right to decide what happens to their own live bodies?

Where is the difference between those things and forced childbearing?

Incidentally, it is time to allow people a right to decide what happens to their own dead bodies, too.... Paradoxically, since donor consent became the default assumption, the supply of bodies/ organs has fallen. (Spiteful thwarting of the relative's last wish, presumably)

@peanutbuttertoasty
Not sure what you mean by your comment, but please refrain from insults.

They also don’t care about children otherwise no child would be without a home

Not a deep thinker then eh?

This is precisely the sort of unpleasant remark that's going to elevate personal egos and damage women's rights, as we are viewed as collateral damage by those keen to take lumps out of each other (peanut in this instance).

It's likely I don't agree with greenlettuce but I'd not consider it productive to conclude something like this based on her post. And I don't think green's aim was to derail or to be unproductive, for clarity. Certainly wasn't my impression anyway.

Not a deep thinker then eh?

This seems a naive take, especially given the recent challenges RE Down’s syndrome

I put this on another thread today but I think its also relevant here:
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1662061344814768129?lang=en-GB

On some issues, British Conservatives are even more liberal than US Democrats, such as on whether being Christian matters to being truly British/American, and — related — whether abortion is justifiable