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?

depends how you define "good reason"

Peppy.

EmilyStrange Sat 25-Feb-12 21:58:47
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 think its a fairly good pov though. You make the assumption that a lot of women would consider a late term abortion for whatever reason. I honestly think that is just not the case.

I happen to believe that, although this attitude might be seen as supporting late term abortion, I actually think its more about recognising that women, late in pregnancy and able to feel their baby, will be more connected to it and therefore a great deal more unlikely to make the decision to have an abortion without very serious and real concerns. Its about treating women as adults and capable of making incredibly difficult and indeed extreme decisions. Given that having a late term abortion is considerably more difficult and physical this also will be something that is taken into consideration and makes it a harder route to go down.

Your approach is that, women take abortion lightly. I think the reality is far from that. I do know someone who had a late term abortion. Her circumstances were horrific and it was a situation I would never imagined or predicted. I'm glad for both the child and her, she had that option as much as late term abortions revulse me.

Great soundbite Peppy. But lacking in substance...

What more substance could you possibly need, for such a basic and obvious stance? Are you confused by my point somehow?

Differentnameforthis- you post on these threads quite often and it's very sad that you had the childhood that you did but I'm not really sure what your argument is

My point is that unwanted children suffer. The rest of your question isn't relevant.

But I'm not so closed minded that I can't see how damaging it coud be to a woman to be forced to carry a baby in those extreme circumstances

But only if the woman who is raped has the where-with-all to take the MAP. After that, you sad she should have to continue with the pregnancy & give it up for adoption.

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

When I was pregnant with dd1&2, they were, from conception very much a part of me, very wanted & very loved.

When I was pregnant with my third pregnancy, (unwanted) I was devastated. I didn't want it & couldn't view it as anything other than a parasite draining the life out of me.

I saw my pregnancies very differently. As do many women when they find themselves pregnant when they don't want to be. If you want to call me uncaring, cold & hard hearted, go ahead! But I think you'll find that my girls will tell you differently. In my case, being cold, hard hearted & uncaring would have been me having that baby I didn't want, keeping it & watching my life spiral into a thick dark depression & robbing 3 children of the mother they deserved!

I had an abortion nearly 20 years ago that I was bullied into and it has left a huge stain on my conscience

I am sorry that you had to go through that against your will, but can you not see that forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy when she doesn't want to would be as equally as damaging?

Because not only would the woman suffer, but there is a HUGE possibility that the baby would too. And that is what is being advocated here, pain & suffering of a woman for being denied a termination & pain & suffering for the baby by being rejected by it's mother! My mother & I live that everyday...only it damaged our relationship so much, we haven't talked for 20 years.

A woman who doesn't want her baby isn't going to magically love it the second it is born, because she was denied a termination. But that is what some people on here seem to think. "Talk her into continuing the pregnant & she might just love the baby anyway". You are playing Russian roulette with 2 lives. But that's OK. Because instead of not existing, the baby just suffers daily, either with the mother who doesn't want it (in my case) or stuck in some care home where it becomes another statistic.

And also, weddingring being forced to have a termination is awful, very different to a woman deciding that she needs to have one. And I can see how your experience was traumatic, but so is being forced to carry a baby you don't want.

remains ^I just cannot, and will not, ever understand people who want abortion up until birth.

So if a friend of your has a still birth do you tell them to 'get a grip, it didn't take a breath so I was never a real baby anyway, was it?!'^

My thoughts exactly. I think where miscarriage is concerned people see itas they lost their' baby' but in abortion it was just a bunch of cells.
It shows a thought process between a wanted and unwanted pregnancy.

The bunch of cells things just doesn't wash now that we have early ultrasound. Most abortions take place after embryo has a heartbeat. I don't see a way around it since it would be difficult to both know you are pg and arrange an abortion before 6 weeks but no one should be misled about the development of the embryo.

Mwanw

Meant to say, meanwhile - I don't think women should have unfettered control over their uterus if it could be used well beyond the bounds of decency. But in practice I can't see doctors agreeing to late abortion for non medical reasons.

chandellina

No it should not be banned - I hate it when newspapers print those "we've had a girl at last" and show a family with 12 boys. The only reason boys 3-12 were born was because their older brother wasn't a girl. The same the other way around.

There are other reasons for sex selection, herreditery disease that only present in either males or females.

The third world is totally different - many women kill their child if it is a girl, they can't afford to have scans or terminations, and they can't afford a girl's wedding. A few grains of dry rice is the preffered method. When a charity tried to set up an orphanage for unwanted girls in India (sorry can't remember the province) the locals were appauled. They could not understand how someone could give their child away to be brought up by strangers when she could die in her mother's arms.

Here's another moral dilema - you are attending a fertility clinic, the drugs have stimulated your ovaries to produce extra eggs, you and your partner then concieve 5 embrios (at this stage) now it is possible that one or two will die and be absorbed into the tissues. It is possible - but inlikley that you will carry all five until they can survive with medical intervention. There is no chance of carrying them all to term.

At this point the Dr offers a 'reduction' procedure. Do you go ahead?

If you do then how do you choose which ones to reduce and how many? Say 4 are girls and 1 is a boy and you are reducing to twins, do you chose to keep the boy?

cherrytopping
"I happen to believe that, although this attitude might be seen as supporting late term abortion, I actually think its more about recognising that women, late in pregnancy and able to feel their baby, will be more connected to it and therefore a great deal more unlikely to make the decision to have an abortion without very serious and real concerns. Its about treating women as adults and capable of making incredibly difficult and indeed extreme decisions. Given that having a late term abortion is considerably more difficult and physical this also will be something that is taken into consideration and makes it a harder route to go down."

^^
This

I believe that abortions to term for all are the best situation because I am heavily pregnant right now. I can't believe that millions of women will suddenly decide on a whim that a 5-6lb baby-sized foetus, that they can see moving every second of the day, needs to be aborted. I don't believe that even the most callous "abortion for contraception" woman would willingly go through labour to give birth to a dead baby that late on, just for the hell of it.

I guess the difference between me and the prolifers here (or at least anti-late abortioners), is that they believe that women will do this? What makes you think that?

By the way, are cleft palate/club foot really things that you can already have abortions to term for (on their own, assuming no other problems)? If so, TBH, I think thats much worse than aborting for gender at 24 weeks.

chand I agree with you that noone should be misled about the "bunch of cells" thing. It may make it easier to make the decision at the time, but it is very likely they will find out how untrue it is at some point in the future. And then like the lady upthread (apologies, can't find the post now!) you end up feeling worse in the future than if it were an informed decision.

I think that the abortion law is fine as it is. (Effectively even if not legally) abortion on demand until 24 weeks. I also believe that abortion after 24 weeks should only be allowed if the baby has a terminal condition.

There is no way a woman should be allowed to kill a 30 week year old fetus for example. I don't care what the reason is. She could go into labour, give birth to a live baby and leave if she doesn't want a baby.

There is no physiological difference between my 30 week DD born because of pre eclampsia and my friend's DD in utero.

The radical feminist abortion to term doctrine is as callous and unscientific as the pro life nonsense that life begins at conception.

We're all just a bunch of cells.

Then the law isn't fine as it is, is it? Because you can terminate a pregnancy for medical conditions that are no incompatible with life after that time.

Peppy,

The law is formulated balancing the rights and wrongs of every situation, and that includes what goes on inside your body, as well as everyone else's. As soon as you ask others to intervene in your body, the law has something to say about it, and so it should. You cannot ask a doctor to remove one of your organs, chop off your leg or terminate your life without third parties having some input in your decision, under the law.

The idea that a law balancing the rights of the mother and the unborn baby is somehow anti woman is ridiculous. Half of the foetuses will we female after all. There are even laws saying what I can do with my own sperm, as soon as it is outside my body and I ask external agencies to get involved. No-one has complete bodily autonomy; it is a fantasy.

you can also abort up to term for disabilities that are compatible with life,
so discrimination begins before birth, it should be up to birth for all , or not at all

That's what I meant sevenfold. I missed off a t on not incompatible with life. In the balance between mother and foetus, disability shifts the balance, legally.

what sevenfold says. Right now the only babies allowed to be terminated after the 24 week deadline are disabled ones, including conditions compatible with life. A pretty good healthy life in many cases too.
One law for al I'm afraid IMO. People who shudder at a 39 weeker being killed with an injection to the heart, do you think a baby with Down's syndrome feels that less?
An extreme and rare example maybe, but its allowed. By law.

Peppy - confused by your stance? Er, sadly not. The phrase you used is spectacularly simple and designed for maximum emotional impact. It also ignores a large part of complex problem we're discussing; namely the foetus. larrygrylls writes an excellent post addressing the points I wanted to make so I won't repeat for the sake of it.

Seven
"you can also abort up to term for disabilities that are compatible with life,
so discrimination begins before birth, it should be up to birth for all , or not at all." (my emphasis)

That's a very compelling argument.

I have reservations about abortion to term, and I except cases of baby's health and mother's health from those reservations.

You have made me rethink that, although I'm not sure what my conclusion is.

I know I think that a woman should have an absolute right to end a pregnancy where the baby has a condition that is incompatible with life. I think requiring a woman to complete a pregnancy knowing her baby will have a short, painful life is barbaric.

I also know that I was shocked (and felt a little queasy) to find out that you could have a late term abortion if your baby had a condition like cleft lip and palate. I know this can make the early days more complicated, but in this day and country it is such a minor condition.

Can you write a good law that would limit late abortions to the "right" kinds of condition? Any lawyers able to weigh in?

I really don't think there is an appetite in this country for abortion to term for all pregnancies, and I can't support no access to termination if the baby has serious health problems.

So maybe I have to accept that some people (vanishingly few, I would imagine) will want to terminate for conditions I consider to be insignificant in terms of the quality of life the child will have.