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?

I think adoption in some cases might actually be the best choice for some women in the case of an unwanted pregnancy. I am not suggesting it should ever be forced but surely some women prefer this outcome.

KitchenRoll adoption would be ideal if there weren't to many children in the system already, these women have the babys they don't really want, some will change their mind other will not, and hand them over to SS when they are born, they will be adopted because everyone likes a baby and the older children who already struggle to be adopted will have no chance, we have enough children in care in this country without adding to the situation.

What about the mothers on drugs or alcohol who struggle to look after themselves, babies born with addiction are difficult and need a lot of attention, we don't have enough foster carers to look after them, and i think you will struggle to find willing parents for a newly born baby going cold turkey.

You idea is wonderful but not practical in a care system thats already overstretched.

And yes abortion is mentally damaging, in my case so is birth of a live baby, i can't imagine having to go through my DD's birth and nearly dying afterwards if i hadn't wanted her in the first place.

I don't believe counselling could mitigate against any damage, but when there are foetuses being killed there is going to be damage anyway. It might veto someone else, but it's still damage.

Do you think there aren't women who regret their abortions that might have been able to keep them with the right support?

Some people have had abortions and regretted it you know.

Why do pro-choicers always use terms such as 'immoral slut' when trying to present the pro-life argument? I have never seen a pro-lifer use any such terms on a thread like this.

The Norway method seems to make more sense to me but IMO 12 weeks is still a bit late for it to be 'on demand'.

17:02:58
I can see that the mother would be in substantial difficulty if she had been raped, or if she was still a child herself. In cases like that, it would not neccesarily be in the child's best interests to be born, and that is what is important.

19:04:29
No one has banged on about life being precious apart from disabled life and life produced through rape.

You have made that up yourself.

Errr.... ok....

Put it in context if you are going to quote me Cherry, I did not say that because I don't believe it.

What are all the pro-lifers going to do when abortion is banned and old fashioned techniques such as drowning in a bucket come back?
Is that a better result?
It is still happening a lot around the world (female babies obviously).

As a woman who has placed a baby for adoption I am fairly well placed to say that I haven't felt judged, have no interest in the idiots who want to accord me respect for making the 'right' choice and would never suggest it to a woman with an unwanted pregnancy.

Iuse you don't have any understanding of the nuances of this issue at all. I don't find that women who have given babies up think it an ideal template. The idea that counselling could make this seem ok to someone planning a termination is farcical.

I think Norway probably has it about right.

Iusekitchenroll you must live in a make believe world. I think society is just fine with women who give up their children for adoption if that is what they choose (choice being the operative word). Do you honestly think one of the main reasons women have abortions is because they are worried about the "stigma" of adoption?

I note that you still haven't answered Woolly's question about whether you would be happy for women to die having unsafe , illegal abortions simply because they "choose" to do so?

yes - can you name ONE utopia where there is no abortion and everthing is spiffing and wonderful?

I am sure there are women who have regretted abortion Iuse and I am absolutly sure there are women who have regretted adoption.

You still have spelt out your adoption plan clearly.

So what are you going to do about the babies I and others have mentioned? Do you have any knowledge of the adoption process? Any experience at all?
Where will all these babies go? The few thousand terminated every year? Who will take them? Who will take the ones that are not quite up to scratch? We dont have enough foster homes now so shall we set up new institutions to house them?

Did you have any prenatal testing whilst pregnant? If so why?

Counselling is supposed to make women feel that termination is ok, so wheres the difference?

I'm glad you didn't feel judged when you placed a baby for adoption, I just wish it was an option that more women would consider.

I realise there are too many children in care at the moment, but that's because the adoption process is widely known to be too complicated, not because it has to be.

There will always be two sides to this debate, and both are equally valid. The best compromise would be for the abortion limit to be lowered. 24 weeks is far too high.

Some woman don't want counselling for a termination because they feel its right. They are not forced to have it.

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

Was for me.

I had an abortion when I was 19, at 10 weeks.

I have never regretted it even for an instant. It has left nary a mark upon my "soul".

Being pregnant that time felt like an invasion of my body. I would have done anything to rid myself of that pregnancy.

I lived in a country where abortion is so illegal that women's right to travel and receive certain information has been compromised, but I still managed to get myself to a humane country where I could pay to have an abortion.

No amount of counselling would have made me OK with being a human incubator for 9 months.

I didn't realise it then, but I was pregnant because I had been raped (I thought it was OK for a man you had kissed and fooled around with to penetrate you while you slept). I was a virgin. I took the morning after pill. It didn't work.

But apparently an embryo, the life of which relied entirely on my body should have overridden the overwhelming desire I had not to be pregnant any more.

You can't make a woman equal to something that is entirely dependent on her body for its very existence.

The very attempt reduces the woman from person to incubator.

An embryo or foetus may be alive, but it is not a person, because a person isn't dependent on another person's body for its life - personhood requires the possibility of independent life.

While a life can only exist within a person's body, that life is less important than a person, and subject to the agreement of the person sustaining it for it's continuance.

If a foetus is equal to a woman, then a woman can't abort for any reason, even if her life or health is in danger.

I'm 21 weeks pregnant. I do not consider the foetus I am carrying to be a person, or to be as important as me.

I think until pro-lifers can take these "people" out of the women they despise so much and gestate them in boxes, they need to fuck off out of trying to deny women bodily integrity.

And don't even get me started on personhood from "conception" - yah, a person can have full human rights from the moment of a notional event, the timing of which can't be pinpointed and the occurrence of which can't be confirmed for around a fortnight

Counselling is supposed to make women feel that termination is ok, so wheres the difference?

no counselling is not designed to make anyone feel anything - that is not what counselling IS - it give a woman space to discuss ALL THE OPTIONS and make a CHOICE

you need to stop believing everything on LIFE's website

When abortion was illegal, pregnancy out of wedlock had a huge stigma attached.
If abortion was made illegal again, I can't see it improving how women with unwanted pregnancies were seen.
Desperate in answer to your question, yes, it might have been useful to be assesed by a pyschologist. What would have been more useful though is my father actually taking notice, when a year earlier, I had told him of my suicide attempt, a week after the fact.

why is 24 weeks 'too high'? your dates can be out by 2 weeks - you have a scan at 20+5 - you are actually 22+5 you find your much wanted baby has half a brain and no chance of life - you need a week to absorb this info and make a decision - by then you are 24+5 - say and it's a Friday - termination are only carried out on a Tuesday and Thursday ..... making you too late

No limit - keep it as it is

Remains said ages ago 'Abortion up until birth?! Dear God no

What sort of doctors would be willing to perform such abortions?'

Shocked are you? Yet that is alloweable for disabled babies. Does anyone think they feel less pain etc than a non disabled baby?
So either the limit should be 24 weeks for all babies or there should be no limit and non disabled babies can be terminated up to 9 months.
And why should gender selction be illegal? You can 'select' for disability, why not gender?

you CAN already have a termination up till birth - it is the law

No. I wouldn't be happy for women to die having unsafe abortions. But I'm not happy about unborn babies dying either.

I don't have any knowledge of the adoption process, apart from a friend who has just begun it and has been told that she woudo be very unlikely to be given a baby so they need to consider everything about adopting and older child, a disabled child and all the rest of it.

We do have couples that want to adopt, and there may be more that started the process if they thought there was a good chance of having a baby.

I had the normal scan at 21 weeks when I was pregnant, just because that's what was offered and I wanted to see my babies.

also Kal you would rather babies with no chance of lie be born and suffer pain - how compassionate

Iuse by your comments I can tell that you dont have any real knoweldge or experience of adoption.

The reason there are so many children in the system is NOT because the system is too complicated or whatever. It is because there are lots of children in the system that are not deemed adoptable. There should be ways of speeding up the process but adoption shouldnt be made easier. How will giving over babies to people who have not been properly and intensively screened help children?

Like in the old days when if you were a vicar or an affluent couple you could rock up to a mother an baby unit and walk out with a newborn.

Chuck a few thousand more babies into that mix and I doubt any child over the age of 6 mths will ever get a look in ever again.
Because you do realise that the children in the system and entering the system are not just going to disappear if your new plan goes into action. Or do you have yet more ideas for sorting out abuse and neglect and bereavement?