To think abortion law is a tough nut to crack?

[chandellina]

so the Telegraph has revealed doctors allowing abortion on sex-selection grounds. I see a couple threads on In the News expressing disgust over this, a view shared by many, I'm sure.

But as far as I understand you can have an abortion on demand for just about any reason - not feeling able to cope, not feeling financially secure, too young, too old.

So even if you were terminating for gender, couldn't you just give another reason? And if you believe in a woman's absolute right to choose - why require a stated reason at all?

My point is that the law seems very flimsy, and why be moral about sex selection and not other things - like terminating because a pregnancy interferes with a desired age gap between children, or it otherwise not being "the right time." I know there are cultural issues involved too with gender selection, but those probably are also in play for women coerced by family not to have a child out of wedlock, etc.

thoughts?

"What I would rather see is support in place so that women are counselled throughout their unwanted pregnancy and are in a mentally fit state to hand their baby over to SS when it's born. There is no good reason why this can't happen."

Yes there is. Because some of us would tell you just where to shove your counselling. It would be bad enough to be forced to undergo a pregnancy and birth against my will. There is no way I would sit in a room with some silly bitch who couldn't, regardless of qualifications, have any idea of how I felt or what it's like to be me and in my specific circumstances and whose mission was to brainwash convince me that it's okay for me to be treated like a brood mare.

On another matter, that of the 0.01% of really late abortions, I don't want to say too much as my memory is hazy and I'd hate to hurt the poster concerned but IIRC there was an MNer who posted on this some while back. IIRC, her baby had died in utero late into the pregnancy and was surgically removed. This was registered as an abortion which imho is so very wrong and which means that the figure of genuine abortions carried out very late into pregnancy are even smaller. Perhaps someone remembers that woman's thread and can confirm?.

That case is horrendous isn't it. Just so awful.

Clearly ending a pregnancy against someone's will is a bad thing.

In the states in one state the new laws leave the door open for women being prosecuted for murder if they miscarry. Awful isn't it.

I think it shows that the law needs to be more consistent.

If that was child destruction, then abortion is too.

Your words show exactly how selfish abortion is Graham.

Iuse - do you mean to appear so callous?

I don't think it is being callous. I think it is about expecting people to take responsibility when they create life.

Do you think women who kill their foetuses are being callous too? Or are the unborn not worthy of any compassion?

How's that then, iuse?

Oh yes you're very keen on people taking responsibility - of course though you don't mean people, you mean WOMEN don't you? Because it's very plain from your posts that WOMEN carry the can for this one. Women must comply with your moral compass, women are resonsible for the pregnancies.

To asnwer the question though, I place the rights of a woman to choose what happens to her body over anything else. For as long as a woman is pregnant she has the right to choose.

GrahamTribe - no use arguing with a pro life bigot. They are right, no matter what. Good luck to you though!

Graham, women for millennia did just that - had wanted and unwanted children. It is biological destiny after all. I think your outrage is slightly hysterical. We are fortunate IMO to have birth control and the choice of abortion, but I'm not sure that exploring or promoting other options should be dismissed out of hand.

How is a woman having an abortion in the UK at less than 12 weeks in any way acting similarly to a man who raped and murdered a woman and in that process obviously ended the life of the wanted baby she was due to give birth to a week or 2 later?

There is a difference between wanted and unwanted pregnancy
There is a difference between a doctor carrying out a legal abortion and a man raping and murdering a heavily pregnant woman

Obviously. Surely people understand that?

I am a bit unnnerved by this thread.

Do people on here with a pro-life stance believe that women who have abortions should be prosecuted for murder?

My "hysterical outrage" is entirely in your imagination, chandellina. I am however rapidly beginning to see what Flippinda is speaking of. WRT what women have done for millennia, we have this thing called progress and I like to see that in action when it comes to women's rights.

Women should be forced to carry children they don't want because it is their biological destiny?

I suppose dying in childbirth or suffering permanent injury is also their biological destiny.

Who needs progress.

xposts

seems not sardine - see I have no issue with pro-life views - but I have massive issues with people trying to impose those views on others, through law.

Abortion law doesn't force people to have abortions - pro-lifes want to force people not to - which is imorral and oppressive

I was spat at and called Hitler for escorting a woman I was working with (worked for Rape Crisis) over the doorway of clinic ...where she was going for STI testing (it was Brooke) - way to go pro-lifers - well done

Well we wouldn't get far as the human race if all women opted out of having children. Just saying.

They don't care about hurting real actual living breathing women, that's the whole point. They are irrelevant, basically. As are the babies once they have actually been born - these people never have much to say about children beign raised in dire circs all over the world.

Exactly - pro choice allows choice. Pro life allows us to fulfill our 'biological destiny' - knackered by childbearing and suffering an early death then.

where as it would be a brilliant super ace wonderful day for all human kind if all women where forced to have babies against their will ...jusy saying

Kitchenroll: Women would not have to have unsafe abortions, they would be making a choice to.

By this, do you mean that women would not 'be obliged to' have unsafe abortions, but would be choosing to?

If so, you ought to know that the history of abortion goes back millenia. So in your view, all these unsafe abortions were a simple matter of choice, and the millions who died should be brushed aside because they 'chose' an unsafe practice? I hate the way pro-abortionists skirt around this issue. If I read your post correctly you are more or less saying you don't care that women would still seek illegal abortion. If they 'chose' that option and died, you'd be happy with that, would you? Because it was their so-called choice?

I do love the way anti-abortionists are quite comfortable with the notion of women dying in pursuit of a termination. Abortion will not cease to exist. It will go underground and women will die, as they did for centuries before, and as they continue to do in countries where termination is illegal.

Errrr what? Did I read that right. Forcing a woman to go through pregnancy against her will and ensure she is mental fit to give her child up at the end of it? Cos counselling is going to be effective for everyone.

You do realise that would lead to effectively sectioning or imprisoning women to prevent them from self harming, having back street or DIY abortions or committing suicide in some cases?

Erm yes, ok. I'm sure a woman forced to go through that would remain in "a fit mental state".

Crazy, unrealistic and totally out of touch with reality of real life.

I despair at just how ridiculous that statement is. If you are pro-life, at least acknowledge that reality and that is a very real possibility rather than living in fairy cuckoo land.

I think there is a simple biological fact here - men have autonomy over their own bodies in a way that women do not when we are carrying a baby. We are in a state of "compromised autonomy" when pregnant. That is just the way it is.

Therefore pro-choice arguments that "a woman has absolute right to choose even up to the point of birth" do not wash with me as moral/ethical arguments. The fact is that we carry someone else inside us and this compromises our autonomy. Much as we would like to say we can always choose exactly what we want, the fact is, when someone else is inside our body, we do not ethically HAVE a totally free choice in the way that a man does. I see it as the burden side of what is otherwise the privilege of growing children.

It therefore comes down to striking a balance between mother's rights and foetus/baby's rights. In my mind, a compromise position is that earlier abortion is ethically acceptable because the foetus is so unhuman at that stage. Conversely, abortion of a baby who could easily survive outside the womb (currently illegal) seems ethically wrong to me (except in cases of rape/genetic problems) - yes, the mother may not wish to have the baby, but tough. She could have had the abortion way earlier or indeed not got pregnant in the first place. I really don't see why the limit couldn't be reduced to say 14 weeks - surely that is enough time for people to make their mind up.

In terms of my own background, I had an abortion when in my 20s - at 10 weeks, which at the time I was fine with. I am now happily married with two DCs. Although I don't plan any more children, I wouldn't have an abortion now if we had an "accident".

but women have had sex, probably outside of wedlock - they probably dared to enjoy it to in many cases - as loose amoral sinners they DON'T count - the ickle babies do

It's a view born out of a general feeling that women do not matter - they are there to serve men and produce their sprogs - nowt else