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?

in Canada, where abortion to term is legal, i do not believe here have been any abortions that late purely for 'social' reasons.

the very few abortions that go past 24 weeks in the UK are very tricky, difficult situations.

very young mothers
abused mothers
severe foetal abnormalities
other tough cases (eg a woman who found late in her pregnancy that her husband of ten years was leaving her for another woman, utterly devastated and unable to cope with her existing children....)

bear in mind a pregnant woman absolutely determined to have an abortion does not have to go to the NHS or any legally practising clinic to get one.

As late abortion is absolutely not an inconsequential thing to undergo, no-one would choose to do it without a bloody good reason.

i feel that people on this thread are just pulling figures out of the air for the number of weeks that they think is right...

peppy no we are not suggesting abortion up to 40 weeks for social reasons is acceptable. you may but I find it abhorrent

Before I take peppy's advice I'd like to say that the tone of her/his post was agressive and rude as I suppose is reasonable enough from someone who regards opposition to killing full term babies as attempting to take control over someone else's body.

"You might desire an abortion as a right over the procreation of your genes. "

I might, but that would be an entirely different request than is currently the case when a pregnant woman asks for an abortion.

Now you are weighing the woman's right not to be pregnant against the right to life of an embryo/foetus.

The right not to be forced to endure a pregnancy you don't want is the right to bodily integrity, and therefore to the status people expect by dint of being human.

The right over the procreation of my genes is a different one.

For one thing, the pro-life argument that the procreation has happened and there is no justifiable reason to end the new life is compelling in that situation.

But suppose we decide that for a limited time you get to recall your genetic matter if it creates new life without your intention to procreate - presumably each donor of genetic material would have an equal say over the continuance of the gestation.

What would be presumed? That the life should be destroyed unless both parties wished it to continue? Or that the life should continue unless both parties wanted it destroyed?

It's fascinating to think about.

Why are anti-abortionists so determined to control what happens in someone else's body?

Edam,

And why are the extreme pro abortionists (as in those who believe in the absolute right for a woman to have an abortion up until birth) so determined to discount that a baby within them has any rights at all? To the extent that they are trying to kid themselves (and how many really believe it?) that it is the act of breathing oxygen which transfers humanness into a baby.

I struggle with the idea of abortion. I don't think I would have one, although I am very fortunate to have only had planned pregnancies, so I'm not in a position to speak from experience. I am the much loved product of a very much not wanted pregnancy, and I'm sure that affects my perception. What I don't understand though, is the hierarchy of reasons for abortion. Yes before 20 weeks and no after. Yes for a disabled foetus but not for a healthy one of the unwanted sex? The lines seem to me to be either too arbitrary, or to send out difficult messages about what is undesirable. And the current law as detailed at the start of the thread is a mess.

If I would rather live in a society that allows abortion rather than forbids it, and I would, then I would rather it were true abortion on demand, because no other option seems logical or consistent to me. I might not think it is the right choice, but if it is not my pregnancy, then it is not my choice.

larry, I think some were trying to point out the ridiculousness of the law which puts a limit on some foetuses but not others. Either it should be 24 weeks for all, or no limit for all.

Athing - cannot believe you think your unborn baby is not a person, and not as important as you. I feel sorry for your baby with such a cold, uncaring mother. What a hard hearted person you sound.

FWIW, those of you who think abortion is a neat solution and better than being forced to have an unwanted baby. I had an abortion nearly 20 years ago that I was bullied into and it has left a huge stain on my conscience. I regret it every day even though I have had more children. I hate the fact I ended my unborn child's life.

And for those who advocate abortion until birth. That is not abortion. That is murder.

larry, don't make assumptions about my personal circumstances. I was very happy to be pregnant, fortunately.

I'm not sure why it's so hard to grasp that independent existence begins at birth. You don't celebrate the anniversary of your conception, do you?

I think the law's probably fine as it is. After all, more qualified medical/ethical experts than us have reached the point we're at over the course of many years' debate, experience and research.

"cannot believe you think your unborn baby is not a person, and not as important as you"

Well the law agrees with me - a foetus is not a person, and I am a person. Therefore I have rights that a foetus does not.

" I feel sorry for your baby with such a cold, uncaring mother."

:o

I feel sorry for your children for having such an idiot for a mother.

"You don't celebrate the anniversary of your conception, do you?"

Well you couldn't even if you wanted to, since the date of conception can't be precisely determined.

'And for those who advocate abortion until birth. That is not abortion. That is murder.'

Oh I agree. But the law says its fine if the baby is disabled. Even for a club foot or cleft palate or dwarfism (sorry, dont know proper term). Why is it ok for babies like that?

I have read thread after thread absolutely slating women who are upset by the gender of their unborn baby. These women have been vilified and berated on MN yet a thread debating whether gender selection is a fair basis for abortion has brought out scores of posts advocating total right to control over your body and therefore the right to abort for whatever reason right up till birth.

MN just beggars belief.

I know, it's AMAZING.

Different people having different opinions about entirely different things.

Who'd've thunk it?

AThing -

So its fine to berate a woman for being upset that she is not having her preferred gender choice. In that case she is an ungrateful cow. But if she decides to then abort said baby well then she should be celebrated as having automony over her body. What a load of hypocritical crap!

A thing I think you willfully misunderstood my point to score a cheap laugh

Anyone who thinks abortion is valid till birth is not really going to take the moral highground though whatever automonous claptrap they care to hide behind.

Emily - please do confirm that you're aware that there is a world of difference between vilifying someone on the internet for their lifestyle choices, and saying it's acceptable to therefore terminate a pregnancy on those grounds?

I have friends who have confided in me that they would desperately love to have an X, already having two Y children. I can completely understand that, and although I have never experienced those feelings, one thing I've learnt in life thus far is that I should never assume I wouldn't feel the same way in the same circumstances. Yet if those same friends told me they were to contemplate terminating a pregnancy on those grounds - I would not feel the same way.

Surely you are not conflating these two very different things...

KalSkirata strange isn't it that they think it is ok for medical reasons, but blanche at shiney non disabled babies being "murdered" as one poster put it

I think the arguments for allowing abortion to term for non medical reasons are weak. We do draw lines in our society and I think the majority would simply find that too cruel and distasteful.

I agree the few late abortions are typically going to be for "good" reasons. Yet i don't accept women should be able to have a doctor perform one on demand at a late date - I can't think of an acceptable scenario but can see many unacceptable ones.

The acceptable scenario is that you have no business legislating for what happens in my uterus.

That is the only argument that matters here.