Bid in Lords to overturn move to decriminalise abortion for women

They won’t give you an abortion for a healthy child. But of course you can get one if your child has a serious condition, this has not changed at all though.

A doctor will not abort your healthy child after 24 weeks (indeed many wouldn’t even before then without a serious reason to do so)

For @RingoJuice and others who don't actually know the UK abortion laws but feel qualified to debate on this topic. Please stop spouting nonsense that we have abortion on demand on this country and/or a doctor won't perform an abortion after 24 weeks. If you're going to argue at least know what you're talking about. In case you're unable to follow, grounds a and b apply over 24 weeks.

Information on the certified grounds for terminating the pregnancy stated on the HSA1 form:

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
ground B - that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman
ground C - that the pregnancy has not exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman (this includes pregnancies up to 23 weeks and 6 days)
ground D - that the pregnancy has not exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of any existing child (or children) of the family of the pregnant woman (this includes pregnancies up to 23 weeks and 6 days)
ground E - that there is a substantial risk that, if the child were born, it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped
Or the grounds stated on the HSA2 form where an emergency termination was performed:

ground F - to save the life of the pregnant woman
ground G - to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman
For terminations under grounds A or B, information is collected on the main medical conditions.

For terminations under ground C, information is collected on whether there was a risk to the woman’s mental health. If there was no risk to the woman’s mental health, information is collected on the main medical conditions.

For terminations under ground E, information is collected on the abnormality or other reason for termination and the method of diagnosis.

For terminations under grounds F or G, information is collected on the main medical conditions

They’d exist, usually suffering from some sort of caregiver burnout, the kind of parent who pushes an autistic child into a river to drown (this actually happened)

I think humans have a bias towards the natural. If a child died because of your inaction, well some would see that as a natural outcome.

So now the issue is it protecting people like Carla but your initial argument was that this law change in itself was going to legalise infanticide ?

Doctors aren’t going to give you an abortion past 24 weeks.
I even pasted the abortion permission regulations for you upthread because you didn't know the UK abortion laws and this showed you still don't, clearly.

No it isn't predicated on that, it's literally a societal construct. You can look throughout history to see that your Christian paternalistic view of women's bodies isn't a given fact, it's a view point designed to control women. Now, should we be restricting mens bodily autonomy or not given we now know the implications of their lifestyles on the health of pregnancies?

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10968330/

Where’s the dissonance?

Doctors aren’t going to give you an abortion past 24 weeks.

But does protect women like Carla Foster, who murdered her healthy, 32-week-old daughter.

Why every adult and not just the parents of the child? Are you opposed to interventions when someone is stood on a bridge about to jump?

Well if there's no bodily autonomy they won't even need to be asked will they? Where does it stop - should a parent automatically be assumed willing to donate their heart to the child? Cos no parent would need to be forced ofc and bodily autonomy is no biggie apparently.

Is this you backing out a second time now? 😂 You already did that before when you didn't want to argue who your desired restrictions of women's bodily autonomy benefited? Also when you were asked in my friends scenario who the risk of prosecution of her or her HCP benefited?

You've been making personal comments and accusations throughout to a number of people, resorting to name calling.
You literally just accused PP of being non binary and not wanting to be female perhaps even wanting to be a man. From nowhere! Absolute madness that you're so averse to seeing any contradiction in your logic and perhaps changing your mind even slightly or even just recognising a different POV for what it is that you resort to these absurd attacks.

Every accusations is an admission with you. I really don't know how you type this out without realising you're describing your behaviour the entire thread.

Except you are literally spouting views that are discriminatory against women and.commonly.held by misogynistic men although it's not uncommon for women to internalise misogyny as you have. So her descriptor of you was pretty accurate and yours are made up personal attacks. I see by now you've already accused her of believing TWAW, calling you a trans phone and accused her of being non-binary / not wanting to be female. Basically her logic is triggering your cognitive dissonance so how do you categorise her as an enemy?

Are you pretending that absent, neglectful, or abusive parents don't exist?

It's quite tiresome how quickly you in particular instantly leap to someone being in disagreement with you on an actual feminist issue to them being a TRA or non binary or whatever else. I'm pretty sure you're the poster who tried to imply I must agree with puberty blockers because I stated abortion would have saved Savitas life. It's really low.

The rest of your post is really unimaginative and just repeating the same old sexist tropes thrown at women throughout history. We actually know much more now on how the health of the fathers body impacts the foetus and it's development - should we start restricting their bodily autonomy for the benefit of their potential future babies? It's only fair if we know that if they drink or smoke it can affect the baby so don't they also owe the world? Why aren't their bodies also not entirely their own? I'm deeply disturbed to see someone on the feminist forum state that women and girls don't entirely own their own bodies 🤢

Can you not understand bodily autonomy and autonomy aren't the exact same concept? Or are you just another unable to articulate why you want to deny women's bodily autonomy so you'll pretend to misunderstand what PP means

Feel free to actually articulate an argument of why you disagree with the concept of women and girls have equal bodily autonomy rights as men, or can you not?

Should a parent be forced to donate blood, bone marrow, or organs to save their child's life?
What kind of parent would need to be forced?

Absolutely this. But of course they have to malign the definition of bodily autonomy into infanticide to again make it easier to attack because they don't have a reasonable defense to why they want to restrict a woman's bodily autonomy. It's the same on every thread about this topic and straight out of the antic-choice playbook.

Yes, I do think that applying autonomy equitably is important.

Personally, I would still argue that autonomy over one's own body should be sacrosanct, but I would respect an argument that said abortion past viability should be illegal, and that every adult should be expected to donate blood and bone marrow as part of a nationwide register, in order to save lives while inflicting minimal impact on individuals.

I'd disagree with that position, but I'd respect it, because it's morally consistent and not misogynistic.

Name one of other law that restricts everyone is lees bodily autonomy for the greater good then. By your logical, morally, none of us should be able to opt out of organ or blood donation, yet this argument of a limit to bodily autonomy only gets trotted out when it's the bodies of women and girls.

Oh so now when you wanna argue against bodily autonomy and a principal you can state that no doctors gonna abort a healthy child but earlier in the thread this law change was going to lead women to start murdering their toddlers and there would be Carla fosters everywhere going unpunished. Another great example that the cognitive dissonance and contradiction.

You seem very stuck on this point, and if you apply the right to bodily autonomy equitably, then of course you are right, and there is an inconsistency. I wonder actually if the philosophical belief of bodily autonomy in relation to parental tissue donation should be revisited? Most parents are more then happy to donate life saving tissue to their children, so it could be argued that those that don't are negligent. I imagine a lot of people might be persuaded that compulsion of parental organ donation would be a fair trade if the argument is an all or nothing scenario. Conversely, if revisting the issue determined that bodily autonomy is in fact absolute, then applying the principle equitably would require revising current practises in many areas e.g. incarnation, when someone if standing on top of a bridge about to jump etc.

Haven't finished the full thread but I've asked you and @OtterlyAstounding has also asked you to who benefits from your stance that someone can't access an abortion if they find out at a certain point in pregnancy. I doubt you'll answer but you exactly do want women to be responsible to exactly? Because you posts are all repeating the same insulation that women owe the world something that no one else does.

I already have thank you and the consultant very clearly stated they could not act as the foetus has a heartbeat. You can continue spreading misinformation if you want but I'll keep correcting it. Feel free as I said to challenge anything I pasted exactly from the enquiry that you feel is wrong.

oh that poor, scared 44-year-old woman who induced a miscarriage at 32 weeks because her daughter suddenly become inconvenient to getting back with her ex. She killed her daughter for a MAN which is a fucking disgrace.

This is who PP is defending

I'm angered by the deliberate and unnecessary misogyny of a world that has rules for me and not for thee.

Should a parent be forced to donate blood, bone marrow, or organs to save their child's life?