Bid in Lords to overturn move to decriminalise abortion for women

"Women and no-one else".

Who else is there.....do you mean men?

Men don't become pregnant or carry human life, nor give birth to it, do they? They don't share in the experience, nor the consequences or implications of pregnancy in such an intimate and connected way, do they? This doesn't mean that women should jettison all ethical considerations in the belief that just because it is their body that is involved they have a right to do anything they please - even in a difficult personal situation.

Women's 'rights' and individual autonomy are respected up to a point in permitting legal abortion - but most people believe that there should be limits - because there are other ethical considerations - that at some point become more important than individual autonomy.

I keep repeating the same things, because that is I how I perceive the matter - no matter how difficult you might find that.

You sound ridiculous to keep repeating it this way. Of course it was absolutely that simple and every legal and medical expert that disagreed with you is just too dumb to understand how absolutely simple you find it! Again you showing you have a real disdain for women and absolutely no empathy for a mother being in distress even if you find it unthinkable because you're unable to extrapolate about how your very hard line position on this one particular case would have an impact of many other women who aren't as simply evil as you've decided Carla Foster is and in many evidenced cases were women experience heartbreaking babyloss. You claim to understand the risks of a hard line position yet are incapable of understanding you're doing this.

Nope again it's not because you disagree, it's to do with the complete lack of empathy you have for women and the way in which you talk about this topic as though it doesn't impact you.

You have no consistent point to make so I assume you are just here to agitate against a decision that is pro-women, you've gone from equating this decision with infanticide, spreading complete misinformation on UK abortion law to advocating for eugenics all so you can avoid answering a couple of very clear basic questions on your position. You want to keep banging on about Carla foster without answering in who's benefit prosecuting women like her is in? Where is the benefit of imprisoning women away from their children for longer than a man who commits a violent crime would be? You also refused to answer where the benefit in a risk of prosecution to my friend or her HCP was? All while being pretty grossly dismissive of the actual impact of these laws on real women's lives like hers and the unnecessary distress. If you believe this distress is worthwhile and not enough reason to change legislation then state why.

You're trying to pretend you don't hold a hard line on this issue but it's more transparent than you think that you don't support access to abortion or bodily autonomy in principal. You don't want to come out and actually state your position but it's obvious when you parrott the usual anti choice lines or scaremongering and misinformation and appeals to emotion and absolute refusal to recognise the lived experience of the majority of women affected by these laws.

ETA this is you again refusing to answer a simple question about the misinformation you post. Are you saying that two doctors won't give permission when the mothers life is at risk?

Well that's a surprise! Most of that is a feminism I can get on board with. But as you say yourself, your adherence to the principle of bodily autonomy is not "entirely" absolute. You've just chosen to apply it absolutely to pregnancy and use it as a stick against other women to advocate your position. Expect the same pushback and accusations of moral inconsistency and/or misogyny from others who choose to apply the principle of 'absolute' bodily autonomy to the fertility trade.

Edit; Re post to include Quote

Women who are in mental distress so severe as to think that a self-induced late-term abortion is a good idea are not criminalised, just as we don't criminalise suicidal people

No, she murdered her child at 32 weeks, to get back with her partner. This was not a teen in distress, it was a 40+ year old woman who was willing to murder her daughter for an ex.

We criminalize murderers, even in ‘distress’. Your distress at being cheated on doesn’t mean you get to murder your partner, for example.

Well that's a surprise! Most of that is a feminism I can get on board with. But as you say yourself, your adherence to the principle of bodily autonomy is not "entirely" absolute. You've just chosen to apply it absolutely to pregnancy and use it as a stick against other women to advocate your position. Expect the same pushback and accusations of moral inconsistency and/or misogyny from others who choose to apply the principle of 'absolute' bodily autonomy to the fertility trade.

good lord. Still going on that I’m a man because I disagree with you? Or that I’m anti choice?

A very common issue in feminist discourse is that whenever you mention any limitation on abortion, extremists will say you are NOT pro-choice, because you won’t support choice in all circumstances.

I totally reject that, and those kinds of hard lines will drive people away from your cause. I think this law change has already been counterproductive, opening up a can of worms here.

Haven't time to respond yet but just to correct you.
Feticide is a procedure to stop the fetal heartbeat prior to an abortion over 22 weeks of pregnancy. It is not the murder of living children.

Agreed but as with Savita's story, where criminal law is involved it can make doctors hesitant to act on theoretical risk as many doctors in the UK do and wait for evidenced immediate risk to life. I mainly wanted to share as it shows how blithe and uninformed most of us are about our access to abortion. It's not guaranteed and we don't have abortion on demand, we need permission and there isn't an option for them to give us permission simply because it's our choice.

ground A - that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated

It is always true that a termination is less risk to the mother than continuing the pregnancy.

I'm in favour of decriminalising the taking of drugs (not selling) and treating drug use as a health issue.

I'm in favour of the Nordic model of prostitution, where clients are prosecuted, not prostitutes.

I'm not in favour of selling human beings (non-altruistic surrogacy) and think that altruistic surrogacy needs to be carefully monitored to ensure no possibility of coercion.

Feticide is murder of living children, not a matter of bodily autonomy. In the case of female feticide, the issue is often driven by patriarchal systems that devalue and dehumanise women and girls, and incidentally, strip away their rights and bodily autonomy.

I'm in favour of abortion at any point being decriminalised, but with a strong push to prevent unwanted pregnancy or provide early abortion, and with a healthcare approach to vulnerable women who seek out late-term abortion, to try to ensure the situation won't repeat itself.

The one thing I'm against that could infringe on bodily autonomy, is the rich being able to use the poor to harvest their eggs, babies, or organs by use of financial coercion, as that doesn't seem like a free choice if financial coercion is involved.

I'm a feminist - I think women's and girls' rights need to be protected above all else, within the structure of a patriarchal world and millennia of oppression that has caused most women to be deeply affected by internalised misogyny.

Is that morally consistent enough for you?

I gave up reading at page three when it became clear that some posters are incapable of separating legality from morality.

We are talking about what is in the public interest to prosecute. We decriminalised suicide attempts because we recognised that suicidal people need help, not jail. I see decriminalisation of self-induced abortion at all stages as a similar humane act.

Northern Ireland has abortion decriminalised for the woman herself since 21st October 2019, as being the minimum legislative change that Westminster could impose in the then-absence of a functioning Stormont Assembly to comply with a ECtHR ruling. NI has not imploded in the last six and a half years.

The decriminalisation aspect of the bill passed by the Commons would bring the rest of the UK into line with NI.

What this means:

• Women and girls suffering genuine stillbirths are at no risk of investigation or prosecution. And yes, that happens, a school girl had her laptop taken off her during her GCSE year, affecting her studies, by the police investigating her stillbirth.
• Women who are in mental distress so severe as to think that a self-induced late-term abortion is a good idea are not criminalised, just as we don't criminalise suicidal people.

What this does not mean:

• A free-for-all for late-term medical and surgical abortion performed by medics. The laws governing medics don't change.

This is it exactly, no one likes abortions.or late term abortions. No one that has advocated for this law change and done so because they are advocating for Carla Fosters actions (as suggested by Ringo). It's also possible to be totally against abortion and believe all the misogynistic "a woman's place is to reproduce" stuff like PP does but know it shouldn't be written into law against everyone else.

(I've enjoyed yours more! You're much more patient at eloquently explaining the logic than I am at this point. It's tiring to see the same old misogyny year after year but especially disheartening to see this onan feminist forum)

Are you saying if a woman's life is in grave danger two doctors won't agree? You are revealing more and more you know so little about abortion especially late term abortion and are only on this thread because you want to spread misinformation. I still highly suspect your a man still and antichoice. I could never sound like a prolifer because I don't think they exist😉

Not at all, but you seem to think they're exercising their bodily autonomy. Basically specific rights are part of a whole web of interacting rights and responsibilities within a social context.

It is hard to say how exactly well-intentioned people ended up here, but the phrase “bodily autonomy” getting madly out of control is one part of the story. At this point, it seems to be operating more like a hypnotic mantra than an important value to be weighed up against other ethical values. Within feminism, it turns otherwise inquiring minds into mush and makes their owners look like cult members. Indeed, from one angle, this new decriminalisation initiative looks like the equally foolish historic venture of self-ID: supposedly about advancing personal freedom, pretending other people’s vital interests don’t matter, fond of histrionic cherrypicked examples, and bound to result in a loss of public support for the overall cause. Kathleen Stock.

Are you also in favour of decriminalising drugs, prostitution and derugulating surrogacy, my body my choice?
What about all the missing girls throughout the world. Feticide specifically of girls is commonplace.

According to the statistics, 345 female infants were found dead in Islamabad in 2017.9. In 2019, the Edhi foundation reported 375 dead infants. A study at the Forensic Department of KEMU, Lahore, reviewed 35 autopsied cases from January 2018 to December 2019. Of these, 42.9 % were feticide cases, the same percentage for neonaticides, and 14.3 % for infanticide. According to the study's statistics, the male-to-female ratio was 1.26.10.

That's not a point, an argument, or a moral position, though - that's an observation about people's ethical incoherency.

I mean, I don't like the idea of late term abortion, and I'd prefer it never needed to happen for any reason, with pregnancy being prevented altogether, or abortions happening earlier - that's best for women, and foetuses. But sometimes it seems the lesser of two evils.

And the arguments on this thread against it being decriminalised seem both distinctly anti-women and incoherent.

(Side note - I've really appreciated reading your comments on this thread)

The point is that people have a bias towards the natural. So if your inaction leads to someone’s death, well that’s their fate anyway (wrt blood and organ donation)

However people take a dim view if your actions cause someone’s death.

Thats my point. Organ donation is the former, abortion is the latter.

Good luck finding two doctors that will agree to do that for you, if the baby is healthy. We know that these cases almost always involve babies with severe health conditions.

You sound like a pro-lifer, saying that doctors abort healthy, late term babies because the law can be interpreted in such a way to support it. Maybe but they won’t in practice.

Where is the separate thread set up to discuss whether foetuses are alive or not? As I biologist I'm morbidly fascinated.

(S)he doesn't have a consistent point imo, they went from accusing the posters on this read of being eugenics adjacent to proposing sterilising homeless people in the same post and consistently ignores the actual wording of abortion legislation when it doesn't fit whatever point they want to make at that momen. Anything to avoid actually thinking critically about why their personal opinion shouldn't infringe of a woman's right to abortion.

People used to be fine with marital rape too. I'm not sure of your point.

In fact, I'm not sure of your point in general.

You're saying that people are morally inconsistent? Yes. I understand that. But that's not a good thing, and it shouldn't be defended. We should not be enshrining moral inconsistency (specifically at the expense of women and girls) into our laws and social norms.

Please read the legislation, they absolutely can and will for the mothers health.

People absolutely used to be fine with infant exposure.

And as I noted earlier, people tend to treat infant abandonment less seriously than if you strangled your newborn to death.

There are plenty of absent fathers who wouldn't want to. It's not some rare thing that requires caregiver burnout. Or people who don't believe in it for religious reasons. Or people who are abusive, or neglectful, or have serious mental health issues.

But again, this means people should be fine with a woman giving birth to a newborn, and then leaving it to die. It's natural, and caused via inaction, not action. So why aren't people fine with that?