Bid in Lords to overturn move to decriminalise abortion for women

She's doing something to her body that will kill the foetus within, yes.

Just as when women smoke or drink during pregnancy, they do something to their body that affects the foetus. But it's their body, and they have the autonomy to do so.

We're now moving dangerously towards the 'women of childbearing age shouldn't be allowed to smoke or drink, just in case they're pregnant and don't know it yet' argument.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/who-sexist-nhs-banning-pregnant-women-alcohol-b941139.html

But access before isn't always possible. In fact generally, the worse the situation, the less likely a pregnant woman or girl will be capable of accessing abortion early, due to a variety of factors.

We live in an imperfect world, where we have to weigh bad against bad. So we need to decide - which is worse? That women and girls who are the victims of rape and incest should be forced to either bear their rapist's child or go up on trial for a late term abortion, or that very rarely, a late term abortion occurs and isn't prosecuted? (Hopefully, the woman or girl would be referred to the health system if it were discovered, and she would be given appropriate support, rather than imprisoned.)

Personally I would prefer that occasionally an unwanted unborn child has their (likely miserable, abusive, given the situation) life ended before it begins, than that women and girls be forced to give birth in horrific circumstances.

Yes, I do think the location that something is in makes a very crucial difference. For instance, a bullet in your body is much more of an issue than a bullet in the wall beside you. Location is important.

Personally, I find it nonsensical that you apparently think a fourteen-year-old girl who has been raped by her own father and is heavily pregnant should be forced to give birth, or criminalised for obtaining a late term abortion.

What does that do, but cause more suffering? Who does it benefit?

The baby can support their own life outside the womb towards the end, it is no longer just a parasite.
The mother is killing the non parasite within, before expelling it. Not merely doing something to her own body.

But access before isn't always possible. In fact generally, the worse the situation, the less likely a pregnant woman or girl will be capable of accessing abortion early, due to a variety of factors.

We live in an imperfect world, where we have to weigh bad against bad. So we need to decide - which is worse? That women and girls who are the victims of rape and incest should be forced to either bear their rapist's child or go up on trial for a late term abortion, or that very rarely, a late term abortion occurs and isn't prosecuted? (Hopefully, the woman or girl would be referred to the health system if it were discovered, and she would be given appropriate support, rather than imprisoned.)

Personally I would prefer that occasionally an unwanted unborn child has their (likely miserable, abusive, given the situation) life ended before it begins, than that women and girls be forced to give birth in horrific circumstances.

She needs to be able to have access before. We HAVE to tackle child sexual abuse, improve social services etc. I don't think such a teenager in such a horrible situation should be prosecuted but I don't think full decriminalisation is the answer either.

Exactly. Imo it's sexist to allow women to commit murder- because that is what this is, and then say that it's excusable due to pain & trauma. Feminism doesn't mean lowering standards for women. Women may be in terrible mental pain, and the causes must be fought but allowing late term abortion for any reason is not the answer.

Yes, I do think the location that something is in makes a very crucial difference. For instance, a bullet in your body is much more of an issue than a bullet in the wall beside you. Location is important.

Personally, I find it nonsensical that you apparently think a fourteen-year-old girl who has been raped by her own father and is heavily pregnant should be forced to give birth, or criminalised for obtaining a late term abortion.

What does that do, but cause more suffering? Who does it benefit?

Do you really think that the ‘something’ ‘colonising’ her body and hanging on by the umbilical cord, yet with viable, healthy life should it be born, let’s say, a few weeks or days before it is about to be born - or even an hour before it is about to be born - is a thing that can be killed, when a few weeks, hours, or few days later, once out of the body it was ‘colonising’, it would have a right to life?

To me that does not make sense.

NB I do think that if the mother’s life is in danger, she should absolutely take precedent and the unborn, late term baby be killed. But I think that U.K. law already made that clear.

I do think that has to be consequences and penalties, beyond the personal, myself....otherwise it becomes an excusable act.

We can understand how a woman may come to take such drastisc actions, but we still cannot condone them...in my view.

Where have I argued that abortion should not be legal in any circumstance? i haven't..so stop jumping to extremes of ourage and emotion in making things up to fit a certain narrative.

I'm not 'reducing' women, I'm recognising the profound and important role that women and mothers ( female people) play in the communal life of a society. I haven't suggested that becoming a mother is all a woman should do, and I recognise thhat women are individuals too which is why I support legalised abortion ( with limits). I've had terminations myself, but have also had children and both of these experieneces has influenced my persepctive ( naturally).

Personally, I find it concerning and 'disturbing' that someone might think they can do whatever they like, whenever they like, and with no consequence - even when it involves another life ( regardless of wheteher that life is dependent upon them or not). That somehow a woman has no responsibility for anything beyond herself......a sort of automatic diminished responsibility.

Referring to unborn babies as "parasites" is very ugly in my view, and it does those who argue for full term abortion on demand no favours in the court of public opinion.

Where have I argued that abortion should not be legal in any circumstance? i haven't..so stop jumping to extremes of ourage and emotion in making things up to fit a certain narrative.

I'm not 'reducing' women, I'm recognising the profound and important role that women and mothers ( female people) play in the communal life of a society. I haven't suggested that becoming a mother is all a woman should do, and I recognise thhat women are individuals too which is why I support legalised abortion ( with limits). I've had terminations myself, but have also had children and both of these experieneces has influenced my persepctive ( naturally).

Personally, I find it concerning and 'disturbing' that someone might think they can do whatever they like, whenever they like, and with no consequence - even when it involves another life ( regardless of wheteher that life is dependent upon them or not). That somehow a woman has no responsibility for anything beyond herself......a sort of automatic diminished responsibility.

Do you really think that the ‘something’ ‘colonising’ her body and hanging on by the umbilical cord, yet with viable, healthy life should it be born, let’s say, a few weeks or days before it is about to be born - or even an hour before it is about to be born - is a thing that can be killed, when a few weeks, hours, or few days later, once out of the body it was ‘colonising’, it would have a right to life?

To me that does not make sense.

NB I do think that if the mother’s life is in danger, she should absolutely take precedent and the unborn, late term baby be killed. But I think that U.K. law already made that clear.

Late term abortion and infanticide are different, though - in the former, a woman is doing something to her own body, or to something colonising her body. In the latter, she is doing something to a human who exists entirely separately to her body. It's an important distinction, imo.

Late term abortion and infanticide are different, though - in the former, a woman is doing something to her own body, or to something colonising her body. In the latter, she is doing something to a human who exists entirely separately to her body. It's an important distinction, imo.

This is an incredibly disturbing post. You've reduced women down to incubators - making it clear you think our 'role' is simply to be inseminated by men, and produce young, never mind our individual humanity.

You're basically saying that past a certain point of gestation, a woman or girl should have her bodily autonomy stripped away, and no longer have the same rights as any other person. There is no other situation in which people have their bodily autonomy stripped away in order to save a life - no mandatory blood, bone marrow, or organ donation. So why should women have this inflicted on them?

And your argument (that a foetus is a precious human life etc) means that there logically shouldn't be exceptions for rape, incest, age, foetal disability, or mental health issues - a woman or girl who isn't able to procure an abortion in time (for whatever reason) should be forced to carry that pregnancy to term, in your opinion, never mind the hideous emotional toll.

And then what? She's forced to either give up a part of herself - that she didn't even want - at birth, relinquishing baby up for adoption and never knowing if it has a safe life, and knowing that one day it might come to find her. Or more likely, she ends up raising a child that she resents/hates and doesn't want - well that won't go wrong at all!!

No one benefits from forcing women and girls to bear children that they don't want. All it does is cause suffering.

You are completely misrepresenting
Shortshriftandlethal's post. Hyperbole doesn't enhance your argument.

I think that in both cases a baby is killed.

’Penalty’ as such is not something I’d want as a result of either though.

This is an incredibly disturbing post. You've reduced women down to incubators - making it clear you think our 'role' is simply to be inseminated by men, and produce young, never mind our individual humanity.

You're basically saying that past a certain point of gestation, a woman or girl should have her bodily autonomy stripped away, and no longer have the same rights as any other person. There is no other situation in which people have their bodily autonomy stripped away in order to save a life - no mandatory blood, bone marrow, or organ donation. So why should women have this inflicted on them?

And your argument (that a foetus is a precious human life etc) means that there logically shouldn't be exceptions for rape, incest, age, foetal disability, or mental health issues - a woman or girl who isn't able to procure an abortion in time (for whatever reason) should be forced to carry that pregnancy to term, in your opinion, never mind the hideous emotional toll.

And then what? She's forced to either give up a part of herself - that she didn't even want - at birth, relinquishing baby up for adoption and never knowing if it has a safe life, and knowing that one day it might come to find her. Or more likely, she ends up raising a child that she resents/hates and doesn't want - well that won't go wrong at all!!

No one benefits from forcing women and girls to bear children that they don't want. All it does is cause suffering.

I think that in both cases a baby is killed.

’Penalty’ as such is not something I’d want as a result of either though.

Personally think in both cases the woman has responsibility and is culpable, no matter how desperate, or sad, her circumstances, and that there should be penalties.