Bid in Lords to overturn move to decriminalise abortion for women

Opposition to drug dealing, buying sex, and buying babies is about saying that the following behaviours are wrong and it's in the public interest to prosecute those who behave these ways:

• selling noxious substances that can kill people
• paying to rape a trafficked woman, which is the reality for many prostituted women, and treating women like rentable chattels
• buying a human baby and treating its mother's body like a rentable commodity

It's not about taking women's autonomy away.

Stop asking pointless questions like, ‘do you think my friend who got the totally legal abortion should be charged’?????!!!!????

Talk about time wasting

@LilyYeCarveSuns
Do you think posters are lying, pretending to believe society should sanction self-inducing stillbirth because the life of a viable foetus outweighs the desire of a woman to not continue a pregnacy to term, when in actual fact they secretly delight in the thought of controlling women? Or are you diagnosing a subconscious misogyny, that you know their minds better than they themselves?
In my experience discussions are only really worthwhile when people are engage openly and honestly with eachother - with what is actually said, and not what is impuned. If you think your interlucutor is dissembling, or doesn't even know their own mind, imo just move on.

I think people are doing a lot of mental gymnastics on this thread to do anything but actually engage with the critique that the outcome of some posters ethics is misogynistic. No one has actually critically answered why that isn't the case and then when they only follow up by saying "of course you think it's misogynistic you love feeling oppressed, you have penis envy, you resent men and wish you could be a man" that their internalised misogyny is pretty clearly stated tbh

ETA if you think Otter or I are misinterpreting their intention did you have any input on why they don't support any restrictions to bodily autonomy that could be applied equally to men and women?

@OtterlyAstounding "The issue is that then men would be required to do so as well, and besides, they're already restricting women via pregnancy - they don't need to do that too. By couching it within something that affects only women and not men, they restrict women's choices and freedoms without making it obvious that's what they're doing."
Do you think posters are lying, pretending to believe society should sanction self-inducing stillbirth because the life of a viable foetus outweighs the desire of a woman to not continue a pregnacy to term, when in actual fact they secretly delight in the thought of controlling women? Or are you diagnosing a subconscious misogyny, that you know their minds better than they themselves?
In my experience discussions are only really worthwhile when people are engage openly and honestly with eachother - with what is actually said, and not what is impuned. If you think your interlucutor is dissembling, or doesn't even know their own mind, imo just move on.
"I do think that any late term abortion or stillbirth should be treated as a red flag - it should trigger a non-intrusive/non-accusative health assessment, to see whether the woman is vulnerable and needs support, in an effort to prevent a repeat if it was indeed a late term self-abortion. ... I just don't think that late term abortions should be criminalised"
I wasn't talking about investigations to distinguish between spontaneous and self-induced terminations. I'm talking about situations where a woman takes mifepristone and misoprostol at 29, 30, 31 weeks, goes into labour, and then delivers either stillbirth or live baby who is left to die or killed - carrying out an investigation to distinguish between the former (now legal) and the latter (still criminal neglect or infanticide). I think it's a very big deal that politicians have said that, going forward, these investigations won't take place - but I also accept that perhaps there isn't much difference between inducing stillbirth, and inducing birth then leaving the child to die. Sorry, it's all pretty awful to write about and I don't want to dwell on something distressing for the sake of it. But a huge change has been agreed to, with the passing of this legislation.

Agreed and this is usually the case with internalised misogyny. I don't think many women realise they're enforcing misogynistic standards on others because they aren't doing it consciously but the end result is the same.

I think you're missing PPs point that they won't come out and say that because the next obvious question is why only women? That's why they don't want to answer about anything that could apply to men and women because they want to paint the restriction of women as something uniquely natural.

The argument is that society should not decriminalise women fatally harming their foetus once their pregnancy has reached the point of viability for reasons that are similar, but not identical to, sanctions for neglecting or harming a baby, once born

Otter has already addressed this quite clearly and no one has answered so maybe you will - when is this viability? Natural viability is way after 24 weeks and of the principal is that it's wrong to fatally harm a foetus why does this only come into play a certain point? Why can't we apply this harm to foetuses to male.lifestyle choices that science shows has bad health outcomes for features and pregnant women, if harm prevention is the principal? And given the difference between a baby once born and foetus is that the baby once born can be given to others to care for if unable or unwanted, others can support, there's no longer a risk to health or life for the mother whereas no one can take over the pregnancy or labour or take on those risks so I'd be interested for you to expand more of the similarities between these examples.

You haven't given any answers, how many times do you want posters to restate their questions to you? Isn't it boring to engage in a debate where you don't want to actually y'know defend your point? You're really just continuing to show you're here to agitate and time waste and not discussing in good faith at all.

I'm still fascinated to know this too, according to their logic it is and Ringo would even be legal due to this decriminalisation change. But then the same posters also said it was a passive act so not as bad and even was common...some people's arguments are literally a maze to understand what it is they actually are arguing for 🫠

If the motivation was to control women wouldn't posters be seizing on your examples and saying, yes, women should be obliged to donate kidneys, bone marrow, blood, anything else their progeny may need to thrive up until the age of majority. Or even beyond. That would maximise control of women's bodies, if that truly is the deeper motivation here.

It's not that the motivation is misogynstic, it's that the thought process and outcome is.

I don’t think I am dodging anything. If they don’t like the answer I give, that’s on them.

I think the issue with this line of argument is you're assuming everyone arguing for the right to access abortion due to the principal of bodily autonomy is automatically defending late term abortions only when they aren't. Otter and I have both clearly stated we don't like abortion on general and in particular late term abortions, but we support the principal of them being decriminalised. The issue with comments like this, and the same coming from Shrift,.that you don't oppose all abortion is that the arguments you are using to oppose late term abortion (nature, passiveness etc) can and are used by the anti abortion lobby to restrict all abortions so we're asking you to explore your line of thinking of what you really mean and why these principals suddenly exist or don't exist at a certain gestation. Applying people's support for bodily autonomy to bring 100% on board with a 39 week termination is a straw man argument in case Ringo wanted a better example. I'm not cheerleading anyone to abort that late and it's a really a silly nonexistent example, nobody literally nobody is having a termination at that point and if they were in a startling rare case there would be a traumatically difficult reason why which is why we don't think involving the police is the best course of action.

It is not misogynistic to give greater value to a pregnancy when its further along. We all do it. All things being equal a loss of pregnancy in the first 4 weeks is nothing like as traumatic as a still birth in the last 4 weeks.

Greater value than the mother's bodily autonomy and consent though and perhaps even her health - can you explain why?

Is there a reason you keep dropping off when you're asked any direct questions on your position and only come back in to attack others uncritically? PPs statement doesn't meet the definition of a strawman for me at all, and if you're going to complain it does you need to explain what about PPs argument she is exaggerating to make it easier to attack.

@LilyYeCarveSuns
"yes, women should be obliged to donate kidneys, bone marrow, blood, anything else their progeny may need to thrive up until the age of majority"

The issue is that then men would be required to do so as well, and besides, they're already restricting women via pregnancy - they don't need to do that too. By couching it within something that affects only women and not men, they restrict women's choices and freedoms without making it obvious that's what they're doing.

"Male and female parents / caregivers are held criminally responsibly for harm after birth."

Yes. I think the important distinction there is because they can relinquish a child to another adult or organisation, and walk away. A pregnant woman cannot just 'walk away' from a foetus inside her. It's a violation of the most profound kind, when not being actively consented to.

"The distinction all starts to feel a bit academic at this point anyway so I can see the consistency in saying all or none should be sanctioned."

I agree. Though ideally, I do think that any late term abortion or stillbirth should be treated as a red flag - it should trigger a non-intrusive/non-accusative health assessment, to see whether the woman is vulnerable and needs support, in an effort to prevent a repeat if it was indeed a late term self-abortion.

"It's a bit of a wild west, imo, making schedule 3 meds easily available without in person assessment, and removing sanction for self administration at any point during pregnancy."

I also agree that a face to face assessment should be required (but also made easily available), in order to assess the woman for vulnerability, coercion, or other abuse, and to ensure that should she be late term and want an abortion, she's offered the option of early induced labour, or a humane and safe abortion in hospital.

I just don't think that late term abortions should be criminalised, and I think they should be safely available, as imo, they are less bad than the alternatives.

I'm not sneering. I'm being genuine. I genuinely think that is what some people would do, after what I've read.

As for schools of philosophy; erm, good for you, I guess? I lean towards utilitarianism, as I said. But you haven't actually said what you'd do in regards to the Trolley Problem.

Would you kill one person to save five? One to save a 100,000? One to save a million?

If the motivation was to control women wouldn't posters be seizing on your examples and saying, yes, women should be obliged to donate kidneys, bone marrow, blood, anything else their progeny may need to thrive up until the age of majority. Or even beyond. That would maximise control of women's bodies, if that truly is the deeper motivation here.
The argument is that society should not decriminalise women fatally harming their foetus once their pregnancy has reached the point of viability for reasons that are similar, but not identical to, sanctions for neglecting or harming a baby, once born. Male and female parents / caregivers are held criminally responsibly for harm after birth. Before birth, male and female people (who are not the pregnant woman herself) can be charged with assault to procure miscarriage / stillbirth. The change in legislation now means women who were pregnant won't be held criminally responsible if they bring about the end of their own pregnancy, so long as it results in stillbirth. I'm not clear on whether the possibility that a living baby was born and left to die (criminal neglect) or killed (infantide) would ever be investigated as a few politicians have promised that this legislation will mean no further intrusive investigations after stillbirths - and it would take an autopsy to identify whether death occurred before or after birth. The distinction all starts to feel a bit academic at this point anyway so I can see the consistency in saying all or none should be sanctioned.
It's a bit of a wild west, imo, making schedule 3 meds easily available without in person assessment, and removing sanction for self administration at any point during pregnancy. It's an isolated incidence of libertarian healthcare in a system that is otherwise 100% socialised and centraised.

In this case, it seems as though if five women were on the tracks, then many of the people on this thread wouldn't push the fat man, but if the fat man were on the tracks, the same people might just push the five women.
Why on earth do you feel the need to sneer at other people .
Or are you aiming that at me.
I'm not a Utiltarian, I'm actually eclectic, no one philosophy has the answer, the tunnel vision is far too limiting for me. Keep an open mind.

And I'm still waiting to know if abandoning a newborn to die is more acceptable than actively aborting a 26 week gestated foetus, because it's just passively letting nature take its course.

And whether, if pregnancy had to be actively sustained by a woman by her own conscious choice, it would be considered morally wrong for her to simply stop doing so at 26 weeks, for a reason she thinks is valid.

And whether others who didn't answer the question yet, would be in favour of enforced blood and bone marrow donation.

And what if the person was attached without knowing, and so is innocent in the situation? They're also a full grown person - if you think it's wrong to kill a late term foetus, then it's definitely wrong to kill an existing human. How could you argue that killing them is okay, and killing a foetus isn't?

Yes, a woman who has a wanted pregnancy will be more upset, because time, effort, and emotional attachment have occurred - it was very close to being born, and now it's dead but still has to be birthed. That's upsetting, if it's wanted.

It is misogynistic to insist that forced blood and bone marrow donation is somehow too invasive to suggest, in order to save people's lives, but that forced pregnancy past a certain point somehow isn't.

And I didn't say you would. I said some people might.

Thank you.

Yes it was. I'm just trying to be clear for the hard of understanding what the law says.

That was already the case in the U.K. wasn’t it?

Of course Id kill the randomer who attached themselves to me.

I never at any point said i was against abortion. I would abort a child if i got pregnant today. I wouldn't wait for 39 weeks to do it.

I think most people arguing against very late term abortions are not against all abortions.

Their cut off point will vary usually depending on viability of foetus and health of the mother.

It is not misogynistic to give greater value to a pregnancy when its further along. We all do it. All things being equal a loss of pregnancy in the first 4 weeks is nothing like as traumatic as a still birth in the last 4 weeks.

I wouldnt push 5 women onto the tracks to save 1 man, that is an unfounded accusation.

Oh, I know you don't think it's about that. Of course not.

Perhaps I wouldn't have to use a hammer to try to hammer my point through, if people didn't consistently refuse to engage with any of the questions or points I've put forward, despite the fact that I've addressed theirs.

Oh well. I know why, it's just disappointing.

No. I'm not buying that argument. It's patently false. It's about controlling and punishing women. It's always about controlling and punishing women

What a strange little strawman you’ve constructed here. It’s not about that at all.

But when you’ve only got a hammer, everything starts to look like nails

Interestingly, the Trolley Problem was invented in its modern form to deal with the issue of abortion, so that's very pertinent.

"Philippa Foot developed the trolley problem in her 1967 paper "The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect," in which she explored Catholic opposition to abortion. She cited examples in which a pregnant woman's life is uncertain; actions that indirectly kill the fetus are permitted, while those that explicitly kill it are not. For example, a hysterectomy performed to save the woman kills a fetus, but the fetal death is not the intended result, so it is permitted. However, crushing the skull of a fetus to remove it to save the endangered woman intentionally kills the fetus, and therefore is not acceptable, even though the woman will die."

Although these days, the Trolley Problem is generally used to explore whether one believes in Utilitarianism or Deontology.

Personally, I lean towards utilitarianism, and so would advocate that killing one person to save five is the more 'correct' action, although obviously still horrific. It is the least bad option, if one cannot avoid the situation altogether.
Utilitarianism is, I think, the more appropriate position in this kind of situation, as if you inflate the numbers - would you kill one person to save a million - then it becomes very easy to see what action is the most morally beneficial.

Tangentially, the Trolley Problem is also sometimes used to examine whether distancing themselves from an act makes people more amenable to being active vs passive (eg. push vs switch, vs nothing at all), and also what or who people prioritise.
In this case, it seems as though if five women were on the tracks, then many of the people on this thread wouldn't push the fat man, but if the fat man were on the tracks, the same people might just push the five women.