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?

"Not all women would 'opt out' of having children. What an odd thing to say."

I didn't get it either, Beer. My DC were conceived deliberately, not by accident. Am I so alone in this?

I am curious of how you in Britain view the abortion laws here in Norway. Here, the law is more liberal than in the UK until the 12th week (abortion is then solely the womans descicion), but stricter afterwards, and abortion is very difficult to get after the 18th week.

In 1978 women themselves were granted the right to decide whether to terminate their pregnancies or not. This right is limited in time, and is valid until the end of the twelfth week of the pregnancy.

To have an abortion, the woman must herself fill out a form at a doctor?s office, whether that be a general practitioner?s office, or at a hospital. She does not need to justify her decision. The doctor shall, as soon as possible, forward the woman?s request for abortion to the hospital. The abortion is carried out at a hospital, and the procedure is free.

The Abortion Act also regulates what happens if the woman requests an abortion after the twelfth week of the pregnancy. The woman may apply to terminate the pregnancy, either through a doctor, or directly to the hospital. A committee consisting of two doctors makes the decision about so-called late abortions. The committee is obliged to consider the woman?s reasons. If the application is denied, it is automatically re-evaluated by a new committee, called an appeals committee.

According to the law, abortions between the twelfth and the eighteenth week of the pregnancy may be granted under certain circumstances. These include the mother?s health or her social situation; if the baby is in great danger of severe medical complications; or if the woman has become pregnant while under-age, or after sexual abuse. After the eighteenth week the reasons for terminating a pregnancy must be extremely weighty. An abortion will not be granted if the foetus is presumed to be viable at the time that the abortion is carried out."

more here www.regjeringen.no/en/dep/hod/Documents/Veiledninger_og_brosjyrer/2000/About-the-Abortion-Act.html?id=419252

Bumps: "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)"

Whilst I can at least understand the reasoning behind people classifying babies with health problems differently (for compassionate reasons, even though I don't agree), I really cannot see the separation of rape victims as anything other than utilising the enforcement of continuing a pregnancy as a punishment for women who have dared to have sex, dared to do so without taking enough precautions, or even taking precautions which failed. Why else would you value a foetus conceived by rape less than one conceived through consensual sex? How do you even begin to decide which pregnancies were conceived by rape anyway? You only have to read on here that although the definition of rape is clearly defined in law, people have very different views on what constitutes rape. Will women, upon seeking a termination, have to agree to in-depth counselling to determine whether they were raped or just "changed their mind afterwards"?

I can asnwer that thisisextremelyverynotgood - it's based on the morals of the WOMAN - if she was FORCED to have sex or a less than perfect 'baby' is in there - she is blameless and to be allowed a choice - if she got pregnant through nice happy sex she is an imoral slut who should be punished

I am struggling to find the words..

The idea that women could be counselled through an unwanted pregnancy to enable them to hand the baby over to SS at the end.

Utter madness.

Just because a pregancy is unwanted it does not follow that a woman could hand over a baby and walk away unharmed.

We only have to look back a few decades to see how utterly ridiculous this notion is. How many thousands of women had to go through with preganancies they didnt want and went on to hand their babies over for adoption? How many of them do you think skipped off without a mark upon their souls?

Unwanted pregnancies should never be treated as a source of babies for adoption. Those days should be long gone.

Its a disgusting notion.

I have never had a termination and cannot think of a situation where I would do so. I wont have to make that choice now as my baby days are over. I chose not to have prenatal testing with my last two pgs for this reason though. That is MY choice and I am lucky enough to have that choice. Who am I to take that choice from someone else.

I am also sick to fuck of pro lifers banging on about all life being precious, apart from disabled life and life produced by rape. Hypocritical bollocks.

Do you think it's easier for women to skip off without a mark upon their oils when they have had an abortion then?

Surely ending a life would leave a bigger mark on a soul than allowing someone else to care for your child would.

Or it should do anyway.

That is a really good way of doing things imho saralyn, i don't know if it would work over here but it's one i could live with, as has been said in previous posts most abortions over here are before 12 weeks.

As much as i believe its a womans right to choose i am uncomfortable with 24 week abortions, one of my best friends was born at 23+5 weeks, he has some health problems but he is fine, i have always felt that abortions when the fetus is viable should have a 20 week cut off point, but then i feel no one would have made it to 24 weeks and abort because they can, i would imagine most abort at that stage for fetal or mothers health reasons.

imo it is better for living children to have a living mother than for both mother and fetus's to pass away.

No one has banged on about life being precious apart from disabled life and life produced through rape.

You have made that up yourself.

Exactly Gordy, good woman = deserving of abortion, bad woman = must live with the consequences etc etc. Fuck all to do with the worth of the foetus or the sanctity of life.

(Hi, btw. I be Alli )

for you maybe iusetoomuchkitchenroll but then you NEVER EVER have to have an abortion - because we live in a society that allowed you a CHOICE - yaya for us

hahahaha Alli hello me old Mucker - fancy seeing you here

Well, elsewhere is deadly boring these days...

IUse, you only have to read this thread to see people banging on about it...

Iusetoomuchkitchenroll read the thread - plenty of people have said termination is okay in the case of rape or disability ONLY - IE those 'babies' don't matter - it's there a lot if you read it :)

happenstance, the stats here are like this (abortions per year)

Under 6 weeks 1 013
6-8 weeks 9 113
9-12 weeks 3 247
13-16 weeks 319
17-20 weeks 174
21 weeks and over 29

Kitchen Roll you post is vile, your proposal sounds like it has been written by a young teenager with little life experience other than sitting round with SPUC/LIFE members pontificating on selfish and callous women who choose abortion when they could just place those babies for adoption. That you believe counselling could mitigate against any damage shows how naive and pompous your ideas really are.

If the mother doesn't want the baby, why should it be brought into the world?

No I havent. Its said all the sodding time on these threads and I am not the first to mention it.

No, i dont think women skip off after an abortion which is why I think its should be on demand - because its not a choice women make lightly.

And YES I do think it would be harder for a woman to live with losing her actual, born child to adoption or fostercare than it would to have an early termination (because the majority are early terminations).

This utopia of adoption you seem to think exists where there are thousands of families reaching their arms out to welcome babies of all genders, colours, creeds and abilities to their lives.

So what if the baby the woman was forced to give birth to had Down syndrome? Those babies get shove to an insitution and the 'good' ones get to go and live with Mr and Mrs Lovely who have a swing and a puppy?

What about the mixed race babies and the ones with parents with mental health issues or learning disabilities? Will they suddenly become easy to place? How does that work then because they arent now and they certainly wont be if there is this huge pool of white, healthy babies with white, healthy parentage.

You have no clue. None.

Not that long ago, all abortions were backstreet and dangerous. It was that way because it was something that was considered immoral and people were stigmatised.

It really wouldn't take long for society to change the way it feels about mothers who give their babies up for adoption if it were given a chance. There is far more stigma attached to women that can give away a baby than there is for women who kill their foetuses, it's all wrong.

Women who have gone through having a baby and then have given it up have done an honourable thing that deserves respect. If the whole attitude surrounding that was changed, then more women would feel able to do it and lives would be saved.

David Alton once tried to run me over - I am very proud of that fact - he didn't think much of the value of MY life that day !

Also kitchen roll there is good evidence to show that abortions are not inherently traumatic for women who choose them whilst giving up babies for adoption has a profound impact on many of those mothers. Continuing with the pregnancy when it is unwanted causes great stress too, you really can't get past how your experience or beliefs should be shared by everyone though can you?

There is no stigma attached to either for me - it's people like you who create the stigma by judging

years ago babies where forcebly adopted - does that suit you moral code as well

Yes incidents of depression after termination are far lower than incidents of post natal depression for starters - having a baby is much more traumatic

Iuse - that view of attitudes to adoption is bollocks actually. It might suit your world view to think that but it's nonsense.

Very interesting to read the Norwegian position though.