Bid in Lords to overturn move to decriminalise abortion for women

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 strongly agree about favouring species inconsistently. I think we can improve consistency though. Overall I think there has been progress in valuing other species over the last century, at least somewhat.

I don't think it's 'hilarious' to be shocked. Nor is it inconsistent to be vegan/vegetarian and pro-choice...whether you're pro-choice or pro-life, it's clear there's a difference between a foetus within the womb and a living creature, animal or human, outside the womb
. I would support animal abortions for health reasons also , and presumably that man would, too. He probably was aware his 'gotcha' isn't that logically consistent.

Yes, I'm vegetarian and have been for over 40 years....and I do think we ( me too) are very inconsistent when it come to the value and matter of animal life. On one hand people treat their pets like humans and get really sad when they die, but casually ignore or dismiss the treatements, sufferings and 'intelligences' of other species.

There is a whole department at Oxford university dedicated to researching and developing animal ethics ( some creatures have their young aborted so that humans can have their super soft skin/leather). As humans our tendency is to only think about what impacts us personally, or at most our family and friends, but beyond that people seem to feel no real sense of connection or certainly not responsibility to our wider obligations.

Nobody is consistent either, it’s so human.

I remember going to dinner with a bunch of vegans (not a vegan myself but we were all good friends).

One of them (a male no less) went on about how he couldn’t agree with abortion because he’s a vegan. Oh, it made everyone else at the table LIVID.

I admit I too was a little shocked at the time, but it was also kind of hilarious how scandalized we all were

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.

Yes, that right. This is a discussion forum. People disagree, especially when it comes down to matters of ethics.

About two years ago a young teenager killed her newly born baby, which she had given birth to alone over night in the sitting room, after no one had known she was pregnant. She was charged with murder rather than infanticide (which has a different burden of proof), and certainly not let off. She was sent to prison rather than for psychiatric care. Many people on mumsnet were going on about what an evil murderess she was.

I wonder if people who are against a ban on late term abortions would think she was guilty of murder, or guilty of a form of late term abortion?

What an awful thought. There are definitely bastards out there who would do this.

Yeah, I think @Batties was being delightfully naïve there. Societies throughout history - and today - have deemed racism, sexism, disablism, homophobia, etc morally correct throughout history, even moral imperatives at times.

I disagree with you a bit, in that I think we do have some kind of hard-wired 'morality' which would've developed for the good of one's tribe. Tribal morality, though, can be utterly brutal. Now we have bigger societies and more complicated lives, we develop more sophisticated moral codes. They are still intended to help us live in harmony and for some kind of mutual benefit.

But there's no shortage of current societies upholding prejudices as moral truths.

Yes, I'm just on a low-key mission to highlight how very unpredictable the business of creating a functioning human is. There's far too much googly-eyed romanticisation of pregnancy on these threads.

Others are doing it better than me, but I try to contribute my bit!

If morality is subjective then anything goes. Just depends on the social context. Everything can be justified.

(I don’t believe in a moral order, humans construct morality)

And it was available before, nothing unchanged there. Again, no need for a law change at all

That's your view. It is not a given.

Yes, I'm just on a low-key mission to highlight how very unpredictable the business of creating a functioning human is. There's far too much googly-eyed romanticisation of pregnancy on these threads.

Others are doing it better than me, but I try to contribute my bit!

That's why abortions for those sorts of abnormalities are available until birth. This amendment whether it passes or fails does not affect that whatsoever and neither would any change in the time limits that are used (though not originally intended) for on demand abortion. There are two parallel schemes in operation.

What I mean is that there is no moral position or point of view that anyone can take which could justify racism or sexism. They are obviously both immoral.

And some don't become detectable until the last month of pregnancy.

Any thread on this topic is peppered with appeals to emotion, like "Ask any woman who's had a miscarriage / stillbirth, who's felt her baby moving inside her", etc. Also a smattering of Gilead-esque moralising about women's duty and destiny to gestate the nation's children.

For the record I've had multiple miscarriages, including 2nd trimester, and never managed to produce a live baby. I absolutely support women's freedom to terminate their pregnancies for whatever reasons they see fit.

Emotion has no place in law-making. Legislation must be based in pure, informed logic. Laws that are driven by petitioners' feelings tend to yield unwelcome side effects.

It can be said that the law reflects and shapes the nation's morality. We should be ever vigilant of religious 'moral' influence on the law, which criminalised male homosexuality and has been responsible for countless abuses of women. Remembering that it's only 12 years since gay men gained full legal equality, we shouldn't let such nonsense as the "womb of destiny" get even a look in the door. We are still on the journey of secular legislation; it needs consolidation not softening.

If the nation decides it needs more babies, it incentivises them with additional support. It doesn't force unwilling women to give birth!

On another personal note - I have extensive experience of pregnancy losses, mine and others'. I also have some experience of child deaths. They are different experiences. It's deeply dishonest to conflate them, and disrespectful to women who have suffered either.

Women in the UK should never give up the right to abortion. In Ireland we have abortion up to 12 weeks. People are already saying it was a mistake for people to vote in a referendum for abortion.
As early as possible, as late as necessary. Always.

Protect your rights.

Then I found your earlier post confusing.

In the context of whether morality is objective or not you seemed to be stating that racism and sexism were not "moral positions" - which I took to mean that you did not consider them to be "moral issues".

I presume I was mistaken and that you do in fact consider them both issues of morality?

Of course it is wrong, on every level.

Do you not think racism and sexism are morally wrong?

Well I'd agree with you. But I think that's the problem with morality being wholly subjective: some things cannot be. A racist or sexist person would probably see their ideas as a valid moral claim, even if we don't.

It’s a fair point, although I’m not sure racist and sexist ideas are really moral positions, I think they’re rooted in things like fear of difference, desire for dominance, social conditioning, or trying to justify existing power structures.