Bid in Lords to overturn move to decriminalise abortion for women

If a person is opting out of something they're by definition not a corpse. I thought the protest poster was referring to the situation where a person hasn't opted out before death but their immediate family refuses to give consent for organ donation to go ahead.
My mistake.

Sorry but I don't feel like this explains when this viability exception comes into place, can you clarify:
I would say because the separation between mother and child takes time. Early on in the pregnancy there is one being: a woman with potential-future-life inside her, and she is free to decide whether that potential develops to become a separate being. Once that separation is complete the life of the foetus has value in its own right and its mother should continue her pregnancy to term.

I wasn't applying a principal of harm prevention. I was using the word "harm" to refer to both neglect of and violence towards a newborn. It was an unclear choice of words.
Isn't your point that abortion is similar to harming a newborn, yet once I ask you to apply a consistent approach to a healthy pregnancy with restrictions harm prevention wasn't your goal? I'm confused you clearly said harming their unborn foetus is wrong, so why do men not have a duty to not cause harm also?

In my opinion the similarites are obvious, but I can try to elabourate further if you want. The glaring dissimilarity is there is only one parent capable of sustaining the foetus's life before birth, and she cannot relinquish that responsibility until after birth.
So very similar to responsibility to a newborn except glaringly different 😅 So it is then a unique responsibility and restriction you agree with being applied solely to pregnant women and girls?

But you said:

"I would say because the separation between mother and child takes time. Early on in the pregnancy there is one being: a woman with potential-future-life inside her, and she is free to decide whether that potential develops to become a separate being. Once that separation is complete the life of the foetus has value in its own right and its mother should continue her pregnancy to term."

So before 'separation' is complete, the pregnant woman should be able to have an abortion, right? And then after, it's a separate person, and therefore should be able to be evicted.

So a woman should either be able to abort, or induce labour. There should be no point when she can do neither.

@OtterlyAstounding maybe at 38 weeks, yes, but that's me answering with no knowledge of what the risks to both mother and baby are associated with induction (usually it's only done when risk of continuing pregnancy outweigh risks of intervention). I think it's already possible for women paying for private health care to book an elective ceasarian at 38 weeks, or is that an urban myth?

This is similar to trans pushing the boundaries and meeting a backlash.

Nah. The law was changed in NI in 2019 already. The rest of the UK is being brought into line with that. This is not sudden, and it's not coming from activists but from Govt responding to court rulings and reports from UN NGOs into our compliance with international treaty obligations.

Correcting the record: earlier in this thread, I ascribed Westminster's 2019 repeal of §s 58 and 59 of Offences Against The Person Act in NI to a ECtHR ruling. It was actually a combination of a High Court ruling (Ewart) and a CEDAW report.

If we do experience a backlash it's ideologues like you I'll blame.

Rule One of Misogyny: women are responsible for what men do. If men backlash, that's their choice.

I didn't ask you a question, I said that, that was THE REAL question (that shoul be asked) so it wasn't a little bit rude. Funny what you take umbridge at considering what you've said about others.
Since we are sinking to the level of slogans don't have any more
time for this thread.

If a person opts out of donating their organs, I don't believe their family can override that after death...? If so, then yes, a corpse has more right to say 'no' than a pregnant woman does.

It's interesting to read @selffellatingouroborosofhate 's post directly above @Imnobody4 's.
IMO it's hyperbolic nonsens to say a corpse has the right to refuse its organs being donated. It's family mebers who have the right to refuse the organ donation. And with this legislative change, and its complete lack of safeguards, it's my belief that there are many family members who will now have, if not the right, at least the means and opportunity to decide on behalf of a pregnant woman whether or not she gets to continue her pregnancy to term - with a neat guarantee it will never be investigated further.

Yes

Right, so once they're separate in your opinion, at the point when abortion is no longer allowed because the foetus is viable, a pregnant woman should be able to at least request the inducement of early labour then, I presume? As it's now a separate being, and she does not consent to having another person inside her body?

Plenty of women too if your friend group is anything to go by.

I mentioned it as an aside, not a major focus, iirc. You're the one who went in depth on it.

It's a little rude to refuse to answer me in regards to the trolley problem, and then ask me another question about it. But no, I wouldn't sacrifice myself, as I'm not unbiased regarding my own life.

I've made my opinion clear that I think face to face consultations should be required, for the woman's safety. I'm not necessarily in favour of all aspects of this law, I'm in favour of women not being criminalised, and late term abortion (or early induced labour) being safely available, through a health pathway that seeks to prevent future late term abortions.

It's really depressing that on a feminist forum women's real life experiences are repeatedly called irrelevant and pointless. @RingoJuice what exactly brings you to feminism and women's right when every real life story given to you of women being prosecuted, dying due to abortion criminalisation and having unnecessary distress is all irrelevant and pointless in your eyes?

@Whyohwhyohwhy26
"when is this viability? Natural viability is way after 24 weeks"
I don't think it's a gestalt, which is part of why it's difficult to discern right from wrong. But now, even at 38 weeks, it's legal to self administer mifepristone and misoprostol to induce stillbirth, which is absolutely beyond natural viability.
"and of the principal is that it's wrong to fatally harm a foetus why does this only come into play a certain point?"
I would say because the separation between mother and child takes time. Early on in the pregnancy there is one being: a woman with potential-future-life inside her, and she is free to decide whether that potential develops to become a separate being. Once that separation is complete the life of the foetus has value in its own right and its mother should continue her pregnancy to term.
"Why can't we apply this harm to foetuses to male.lifestyle choices that science shows has bad health outcomes for features and pregnant women, if harm prevention is the principal?"
I wasn't applying a principal of harm prevention. I was using the word "harm" to refer to both neglect of and violence towards a newborn. It was an unclear choice of words.
"And given the difference between a baby once born and foetus is that the baby once born can be given to others to care for if unable or unwanted, others can support,"
This is true if a woman gives birth in the presence of others who are willing and able to care for the newborn. That won't be true if she inducs labour by self administering mifepristone and misoprostol late in the pregnacy and delivers a live baby.
"there's no longer a risk to health or life for the mother"
I think it's right that we allow termination of a pregnancy up to term, in a healthcare sertting, if the mother's life is at risk. I don't think a pregnant woman's obligation to protect the life of her viable foetus is absolutre.
"whereas no one can take over the pregnancy or labour or take on those risks so I'd be interested for you to expand more of the similarities between these examples."
I don't think it makes a difference that the pregnant woman is the only one who can sustain the life of a foetus before birth if she is capable of doing so. If my husband and I neglect our child we will be held criminally responsible for the injury / death that results. Our neighbour won't be. The extra responsibility a mother has for her own child is continuous, from before birth until majority. The child's father / other mother takes on this additional responsibility from birth. Yes, there is an option for a parent to relinquish this responsibility after birth - but they have to go through the formal, legal process. They will never be free to just decide they're not responsible for sustaining the life of their child any more.
In my opinion the similarites are obvious, but I can try to elabourate further if you want. The glaring dissimilarity is there is only one parent capable of sustaining the foetus's life before birth, and she cannot relinquish that responsibility until after birth.

I'm not asking you if she should be charged! I've asked you very clearly where the benefit was for her abortion being criminal if the red tape wasn't performed given you're arguing incorrectly that there is no red tape and that we have abortion on demand or that we need to keep the red tape regardless of the distress it causes some women. Asking you to empathise with the real application of these laws on women isn't pointless, how insulting.

1. The 1967 Abortion Act regulates the circumstances under which health care professionals can perform abortions. It doesn't govern the woman's actions towards herself.
2. That law is not itself without problems, creating a situation where a health care professional is having to consider patient care decisions through a filter of "will I go to jail?" as well as "is this best for the patient?". No other medical procedure is subject to such legislation. We saw in the case of Savita Halappanavar how such legal hobbling can result in harm to patients. Fortunately, in the UK, the hobbles are looser than they were in Ireland, however that spectre of "will I go to jail if I gauge the risks in a way that a lay jury don't agree with?" is still there.

Tangentially, according to Google AI and its sources, "Babies born at 28 weeks (extremely preterm) have an 80–90% survival rate. While most survive, they face increased risks of long-term health complications, including cerebral palsy (approx. 9% risk), learning disabilities (~15%), and chronic pulmonary or cardiovascular issues. Nearly 60% may have cognitive impairments, though most lead independent lives.
Roughly 5–10% have severe lifelong disabilities. Survivors have a higher chance of a disability pension and are less likely to have children themselves compared to term-born peers."

That doesn't sound overly 'viable', really. To me, legally 'viable' should mean 'can live on their own, without extensive, intensive medical intervention'.

But that's by the by.

As ouroboros said, ultimately any argument that seeks to criminalise women for self abortion is saying that pregnant women have fewer rights than a corpse. And I don't personally think that's acceptable.

If you genuinely think that there is no point in this discussion.
You are the one who brought up the trolley problem.
I haven't said what I think because it's an irrelevant abstraction.
As far as abortion law goes it isn't being changed. DIY abortions remain illegal. The change is decrimalising the mother in these circumstances.
This leaves women in a vulnerable position with regard to outside pressure and abuse. If the only contact is via a phone consultation there is no proper safeguarding. There are few late pregnancy terminations currently. If there's an increase it could likely be due to abuse. Bad men will exploit any loop hole (surely you'll agree with that)
We have had a settled concensus about abortions for decades, the law was changed some years ago re no. of weeks. This is similar to trans pushing the boundaries and meeting a backlash. If we do experience a backlash it's ideologues like you I'll blame.
(On the trolley problem ‐ the real question is would you sacrifice yourself?)

In this country, whilst consent to post-mortem organ donation is now presumed, it can still be actively opted out of. A corpse has the right to say no to their organs being used to save other people. But some posters think women should be criminalised for self-administered abortions.

These posters are misogynists who think that pregnant women should have fewer rights than corpses.

But we can and have made a law based on address of visibility and health of the mother. That's literally why they're are different time limits. That works perfectly fine. The cut off limit effectively 'on demand' is later than I'd like, but the twin track system is sound and has been for a long time.

Soooo many other questions have been asked.

I can only surmise you have no answers.

So if you gave birth in a field outside your house, and left the baby there, still definitely alive, in order to (passively) allow it to naturally die, would that be worse than abortion?

It's a thought experiment. Why can't you answer it?

We don't pay women to stay pregnant when they want an abortion. Why should the rules be different for blood and marrow donations? Which are a far lesser violation.
Your answer makes it clear you think that men (and non-pregnant women, although most women will be pregnant at some point in their lives) should be valued, and bribed, and that overriding their autonomy even for something so minor as a blood donation is unacceptable. If they don't want to donate, then the child or adult who needs that donation will die, and that's fine by you. But a pregnant woman must be forced to non-consensually stay pregnant for...some reason?

And your last answer makes it excruciatingly clear it's not about preserving human life at all, it's specifically about making sure that past a certain point, pregnant women stay pregnant, for some reason.

Thank you. I think your answers are morally incoherent, and show up a subconscious ingrained patriarchal view of women deserving less right to bodily autonomy than men, but I do genuinely appreciate that you answered.

The problem with "Their cut off point will vary usually depending on viability of foetus and health of the mother." is that you can't make a law on the basis of something so subjective.

This thread is talking about a change to the law, not people's personal moral compasses.

What Whyohwhy said.

I think the extent to which posters are engaging in moral dissonance, tying themselves in knots to avoid even the most minor infringement on bodily autonomy (blood donation) that might affect men, in order to save lives, while insisting that women should suffer through a profound, non-consensual violation in order to save a foetus, is very telling.

I mean, pro-lifers will say they're against all abortion because all lives are precious, and advocate ferociously for foetuses, but then many of them are also in favour of policies that cause avoidable suffering to born children. They say they care about children, and they may even believe they do, but anti-abortion arguments for the most part are held by people who also have very little value for born lives, and certainly wouldn't be in favour of enforced blood and bone marrow donation, because ultimately it's not about 'saving lives' it's about controlling women's bodies.

This is similar, but to a less extreme extent.

I'm engaging honestly, but it's difficult to engage with people who refuse to acknowledge that their own motivations appear morally dissonant, and point to an origin in patriarchal views. I've put forward many sincere points and questions, and I've tried to answer everyone else's fully and seriously, but frankly, not many people are returning the favour and answering my points. I'm not sure why not.

As for the difference between infanticide at birth and feticide - personally I think the approach in both cases should be focused on a health approach, and prevention.

A woman who does such a thing, when she has access to abortion earlier on, is clearly extremely vulnerable or disordered - due to abuse, personality disorders, addiction, or other mental health issues, and needs help to ensure it doesn't happen again - but she's also not generally going to be a danger to anyone else but herself, and future pregnancies. So criminalising her seems unnecessary.

I think abandoning a newborn, if you trek up a mountain to deliberately expose it to the elements/ wildlife like the vikings occasionally did is an active process and pretty much the same as killing the baby.

I think if its abandoned straight after birth, on a doorstep or somewhere similar the above does not apply.

I am somewhat torn on the giving birth alone in a field and then just leaving it there. If its silent the mother could assume its dead already.

Your second question is irrelevant. Its not possible.

With regards to blood/ marrow donation,
If people stop donating paying them would be my preferred option.

And in answer to a previous question, if a stanger, a grown ass man was using me as a life support system, i would kill him quicker than if it was a newborn.