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 dont think a law could be worded well given ultrasounds are inaccurate. We've all seen stories where the ultrasound predicted X, the baby terminated and it was fine. Its generally presented as tragic a non-disabled child died cos if it was disabled then no problems.
And maybe some education around certain conditions is needed (which would go hand in hand with inclusion).
But hving given birth to a baby who was given minutes, then hours to live I know, for myself, I'd rather have had those few seconds with her alive and held in my arms than have never met her. And the doctors were wrong. She is 8 in a few weeks.

"I know, for myself, I'd rather have had those few seconds with her alive and held in my arms than have never met her."

I think that is such a personal decision, though, and one that women have to be allowed to make for themselves.

I'm so glad for you that you got to meet your daughter :)

She's 8 and was given minutes to live? Wow, I'm speechless. They got it so wrong...

she had apgars of 0 and 0. We were told she would be a 'vegetable' too if she did live and encouraged to turn the ventilator off. Turns out she is pretty bright despite her physical issues.
What if we had listenend to the doctors? Doesnt bear thinking about.

not that I'm saying learning disabilities are an issue. Not for me they are not. Her life would be just as valued if she had had learning disabilities but the doctors were acting like it was the end of the world.Doctors are not disblaed people friendly!

I bet I would have listened :(

I am (shamefully) obedient when it comes to doctors.

Well done for having so much faith in her, what a lovely (and terrifying) story :)

ahem, has it suddenly got smoky in here?

I think 'pain in the arse' is written in my daughters notes

but we all make decisions based on our circumstances at the time and who we are and how we are feeling. Someone who would maybe have chosen to turn the ventilator off would have done what was right for them at that time given what they knew/felt/life experiences etc
No-one knws what they will do until you're in that room with that machine. I didnt and I hope Im never in that situation again. We know dd isnt expected to live till 18 and Im hoping when it does come its clear cut that its her time.

doctors do get it wrong.
doctor at dd's birth( he was called after she was born) walked away from her as he thought she had no pulse, thank god a MW found it, or he would have let her die.
I was also told she would have mild cp!!

We are in similar situation to Kal. We were told at 20wks gestation tha tour baby had a condition which was not compatible with life and we should terminate. For me that wasn't an option. If he was going to die then he's die naturally. I knwe that I wouldn't be able to be responsible for ending his life.

When he was born they were still convinced he had this condition, then the genetics results came back and nope it wasn't. Still we were told he had so many abnormalities that he would never walk, talk or have any quality of life...........he was 7 yrs old a few weeks ago, attends mainstream school and is such a happy, wonderful little person. Cognitively ( against all the odds) he is developoing age/stage appropriately. Yes he has some medical issues, he is tube fed and uses a wheelchair for distance but he is ALIVE, HAPPY, LOVING and the best thing that has ever happened to me.

I have been told he sprinkles fairy dust wherever he goes. He loves people and people love him............what a loss the world would have experienced, had I listened to the doctors.

P.S We still don't have a diagnosis :)

Its spectacularly simple because its meant to be. There are no other arguments necessary. My body my choice...its not just a soundbite, its a reality. Or it should be.

Of course it ignores the foetus, thats the point (and where you seem confused). The foetus should be ignored. That is the ultimately full pro-choice stance.

Do you need me to explain some more?

no one has answered about whether the father should get any say. My adult son asked me this. I said no, its the woman's body. If you dont want a baby wear a condom because the woman may choose to keep it and you have to pay, tough. Thats your responsibility. If you want the baby, gestate it yourself.
Any other opinions?

No, and I didn't need your explanation below either. You can say your soundbite all you like, but thankfully the debate is more rounded than your viewpoint alone. Thankfully the foetus is considered to be relevant within the debate, so as "simple" as you might perceive the issue to be, it quite plainly isn't.

You're using the wrong argument larry, whether a doctor would choose to assist in my desire is an entirely different matter than you saying that an unborn foetus has rights that trump mine, as a fully functioning autonomous individual.

I am legally a person, a foetus is not. I should have the legal right to bodily autonomy, and to choose whether or not I have children, and what grows inside my body. To force a women to carry a child she does not want is of course anti-woman. How can it be anything else?

Its not a soundbite, lottie, its an opinion, one shared by many. If you don't like my opinion, fine, but don't denigrate it as a soundbite just because it can be put across succintly and clearly.

you may consider the foetus relevant, I do not. And I have as much right to my opinion as you do.

The reason pro-lifers say they would 'allow' women to terminate pregnancies that occurred due to rape is because the whole pro-life position is about hating women. It's not even foetus-worship that motivates these fuckers, it's their deep and abiding conviction that women are breeding stock rather than people and must be forced to submit to male authority over their bodies: men get to choose under what circumstances women become pregnant, men get to insist pregnancy continues against the woman's wishes, men get to control and police every aspect of women's behaviour, especially their sexual behaviour. So allowing a raped woman to abort is about making sure her male owner doesn't have to pay for the raising of a rapist's child, not about the woman's feelings at all.

Peppy - it's the pompous, posturing way you put forward your argument which engenders my particular response. Your use of sentences such as "that is the only argument which matters here" (after stating your mere opinion on the subject) tends to suggest you think your opinion is fact rather than, um, just your opinion.

The fact is, it's a contentious subject precisely because large groups of people disagree with you. Thankfully.

Peppy,

If you want to use the law as a definition, you have to be consistent. If you are LEGALLY a person, you cannot LEGALLY have an abortion post 24 weeks on the basis of choice alone. That is a right the foetus has in law.

And, again, where am I saying a foetus's right trumps yours? You are deliberately confusing two different rights. I.E the foetus's (or unborn baby's late on in pregnancy) right to life vs your right to not carry it for a matter of 16 weeks (40 - 24). These are not equal rights. If it were your right to life versus the foetus's it would be (and is, in law) no contest.

And, again, we are discussing abortion post 24 weeks. I cannot see you achieving this without a doctor helping you. So, it is not an entirely separate matter, however much your theoretical approach would like to separate it. Real life is messy and moral dilemmas are more complex than your one line assertion.

Really? You like your extreme pro-choicers to be humble and demuring? Not altogether likely, I would have thought.

Your stance, anyone who thinks they should have the right to legislate for my body, to take choice away from all women...is arrogant, condescending and controlling. I think we can counter that with a little passionate rhetoric from the right other side, don't you?

Real life is messy. Which is why it should be up to the women whose life it is to make the decisions regarding their lives.

Oh, and you can achieve terminating a pregnancy after 24 weeks, without a doctor. Of course women who are desperate enough to try usually kill themselves as well, but I guess thats not really the point......

The right a non-disabled foetus has in law. A disabled foetus has fewer rights.

Bloody hell this thread has been an eye opener to me. I had no idea that so many people genuinely beleved in abortion up until birth.

Personally speaking (and I accept that not everyone feels like this) my children were my babies from when I discovered I was pregnant, not just a feotus. I cannot grasp how anyone could consider ending the life of a baby at say, 37 weeks. I am not in a position to judge anyone else but I just, honestly, cannot get my head round that and am genuinely surprised.

Kalskirata In answer to your question, I don't believe the man has any rights over what happens to a woman's body or the contents of her uterus either and think what you said to your son is spot on. If a man doesn't want to be put in this position, he must take precautions to avoid it. He should take responsibility.

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.

I don't think this is a good example. Sure, a simple cleft lip and palate can be corrected and is "a minor condition". What we don't hear so much of is that this is very often just one manifestation in a large number of syndromes - which involve severe CNS damage and other major physical and developmental problems due to serious genetic mutations, often incompatible with life. 40% of cleft lip and palate cases are only one fairly minor manifestation of much more severe conditions.

you shouldn't take that to mean that anyone with that position doesn't have a personal problem with it, as some of us divorce the personal from the political. Or that any of us actually want to see it happening. The point of the stance is that there should be only one person who make those decisions.

sportsfanatic

"What we don't hear so much of is that this is very often just one manifestation in a large number of syndromes - which involve severe CNS damage and other major physical and developmental problems due to serious genetic mutations, often incompatible with life."

Well then it was a good example, because I didn't know that, and you're right it isn't something you usually hear :)

And it strikes me that perhaps the reason I read it given as as an example was to exploit that ignorance - to malign families faced with considering termination for serious disabilities by implying that they were doing it for cosmetic reasons.

I did know enough to know that it was related to other health problems but not that any of them were so serious.