Bid in Lords to overturn move to decriminalise abortion for women

Why is it obviously wrong that a child going into care from birth would be better off aborted, if its own mother actually wants to abort it? (Clearly Im not talking about a third party taking that decision

It feels eugenics-adjacent to a lot of people: like you are explicitly saying that it’s better off to not exist at all than to exist as a poor person or in a neglectful home (standards of which is going to be different due to cultural backgrounds as well).

Even I wouldn’t go as far as this. But it was the assumption of Margaret Sanger and other early 20th century eugenicists that you wanted to suppress the birth rates of ‘unfit’ people. I am conflicted: I wonder why we don’t just sterilize women who are homeless and/or severely mentally ill, who have child after child because they are unable or unwilling to prevent it. People will say it’s discriminatory towards the poor. But yet, attitudes like the above reveal that people really do think that it’s better to not exist than to be born into poverty or an unstable, neglectful home.

Oh, interesting! Thank you for that. And yes - a good point about the baby trade.

Obviously I'm not in favour of late term abortions, and I think there needs to be more done to make sure they can be avoided, with contraception and early abortion access...but I shy away from anything that means women will be criminalised for exercising bodily autonomy.

It seems far more reasonable to take the approach of providing intensive social support for any woman who is in a situation where she kills a viable foetus, or perhaps even an infant. Prevent it from reoccurring, and also give her support, without turning her into a criminal.

The idea of expecting women and girls to destroy their mental health, physical health, and their futures, all to save the lives of foetuses seems incredibly misogynistic, considering we don't even expect people to do something as small as donate blood to save actual, living people's lives, due to bodily autonomy.

In almost every circumstance it is going to be safer for a mother to have a termination than it is for her to continue with the pregnancy so there is always a justification for termination on medical grounds at any stage of pregnancy.

There was a study out of Texas that examined missed abortions, eg women who intended to get abortions but didn’t for reasons like missed appointments, found they were past the limit, etc (this was prior to Roe v Wade being struck). They overwhelmingly decided to keep their child, so it would likely not be true that there would be a glut of children available for adoption or placed on a care home automatically. Your instinct is correct here.

Im also recalling that a lot of adoptions in the past were very coercive, as the baby trade was very lucrative in the past (and continues to be with international adoption)

What im saying regarding the upshot is that for example if laws are written with good intentions but actually result in unfairness, then they are no good as laws and need rewriting. In the same vein if a moral principle held by a society only creates distress and suffering then doesn't it need revisiting? As pp said what was the point of moralising homosexuality? What is the point of morality? One is 'taking a life' whether the abortion is early, late or embryos not implanted during IVF are destroyed.

Why is it obviously wrong that a child going into care from birth would be better off aborted, if its own mother actually wants to abort it? (Clearly Im not talking about a third party taking that decision.)

I imagine most women who don't abort a child won't adopt them out, however, just neglect, or potentially abuse them. I have to think that vulnerable women who are in the kinds of chaotic situations where they are unable to arrange access to early abortion, either due to drug issues, mental health issues, or other problems, are unlikely to organise the relinquishment of their child.

That's not true in the case of late term self abortions. But yes, in legal late term abortions for medical or other reasons, I believe they do stop the foetus's heart and induce labour, after which the baby is birthed in the usual way.

One could very easily argue that at that degree of gestation, it would do minimal extra harm to allow the pregnancy to continue for a few more weeks, until the foetus could be safely born. After all, we don't murder people just because they're causing someone emotional harm.

It's a morally inconsistent stance to take, and requires a woman to somehow prove that she's been raped or abused, and is therefore worthy of being granted autonomy over her own body. Because it's not about the foetus being a living human, at that point - if that were the case, it would only be permissable to abort were the mother in imminent physical danger, or the baby non-viable.

If it's acceptable sometimes, then the logic is entirely based around whether or not society thinks the woman is suffering enough to be permitted to commit what is otherwise considered murder. I think that's pretty gross for a variety of reasons.

Quite, a surgical abortion can involve the disection of the foetus, or at least suctioning it to remove it from the woman's womb.

I don't understand how this will work in practice.

Late self inflicted abortions will produce a dead baby. Probably in the family home.

If this cannot be investigated, due to potential distress, what is stopping someone having a home birth and killing the baby 2 days later?

What if the drugs dont kill the foetus but do cause the birth of a live baby and then it dies because of neglect?

What about all the other distressing deaths that might occur in the family home (clumsy 3 yo fell down the stairs again!) Should they be ignored also?

As an aside not all adopted children have such horrendous lives that being aborted would have been a better option.

No, a lot has to be done to the baby to kill and get it out. It isn’t just done to the mother.

Using words such as 'monstrous' is doing your argument no favours. Emotive argument is not going to win the day when it comes to wider and societal ethics.

One can feel empathy for the young girl and the awfulness of her situation, but still respect the wider ethical dimensions involved.

What a monstrous stance to take.

I cannot be bothered arguing with someone who believes something so rankly misogynistic.

No, I don't...because that really is a matter of one's own body. Same as i don't support mandatory vaccination.

I thought ( but could be wrong) that a rape incest victim girl/woman, or very young teenager, presenting with a late term pregnancy, no doubt because of very difficult circumstances, and wanting an abortion, might in practice be treated by doctors as being in grave danger of harm, meaning the baby could be killed so the mother’s well being could take precedent.

(As I recall this was the case with someone I knew who was way too young even though she had not been raped.)

Unfortunately, I think that has to be the case..because of the importance of the wider implications. Not everything revolves around one individual. And of course, the father would have to be prosecuted.

Ask the previous poster! They're the one who shared the study, not me. I in fact said in my comment that I don't think the study is particularly applicable.

So you support government-enforced mandatory blood and bone marrow donation, I presume?

Why are you looking at American statistics? In the UK legal abortion within limits has long been a settled matter.

You have. If she's past 24 weeks. Right?

So? Alcohol and drugs can cause life-long disabilities. Is that okay to deliberately inflict on a child, in your opinion?

Where do we draw the line?

I don't think most of them are. But I think some of them will be.

But I'm not sure I trust an American study on abortions after 20 weeks, nor do I think it's particularly applicable given the difficulty for women to access or fund abortion in the USA, with ability to pay, lack of insurance, and access, all being labelled as contributing factors.

I will note however that one of the quoted studies says:

"Later abortion recipients experienced logistical delays (e.g., difficulty finding a provider and raising funds for the procedure and travel costs), which compounded other delays in receiving care. Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous."

So, do we want to force women who are mostly either young, in poverty, experiencing domestic violence, depressed, on drugs, or single mothers, to give birth, when they don't want the child, but most likely won't give it up for adoption? Do we think that it will it benefit anyone to criminalise late term abortion? Or would approaching the situation from a health and social support perspective be more useful?

The 'right to bodily autonomy' is purely conceptual. It is an ideological article of faith. A mantra .In practice before we act we consider many factors other just our own immediate self interest ( well, most people tend to, anyway) - such as the wider implications of our actions and the ethics of them.

Yes, CSA happens all too often but rape relayed abortion (let alone late term is relatively rare).

And let's face it, a rapist father is more likely to ensure his victim gets an early abortion so his abuse isn't discovered.

Alcohol and drugs aren't definitely going to kill a foetus though, and that is not the purpose of taking them. Abortion is different.