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 agree with seven and Kal but it just doesnt seem to be sinking in.
Its like people dont want to understand.

For us to demand that to term abortions are available for all is not to say we want thousands of late term abortions.
We are demanding that society puts the same value on the life of a disabled person/child/fetus as it does on a non-disabled one.

To hear that bloody phrase '[late] abortion is so wrong, well unless the baby is disabled of course [head to one side, tragic but understanding expression on face]'

[late] abortion is either ok or it is not. If it is ok than it is ok for all pregnancies. If it is not then it is not for all pregnancies.

It seems ironic that it those who are pro choice are the ones that are trying to get this across when it tends to be the pro lifers who dont get it.

I don't know how you get round it, though. I wouldn't be terribly keen on making abortion at 37 weeks legal across the board, but you do need some flexibility for horrible conditions where the poor baby will die immediately or very shortly after birth and will suffer terribly. Some forms of brain abnormality, for instance. And it's well-nigh impossible to write a list of conditions - look at the cleft palate example. Better to leave it to the individual woman and doctors concerned.

SolidGoldBrass. My GOD you are such a flaming bigot! How dare you say that to be pro life means you hate women?! Have you met every single person in the entire world with a pro life view? No? Well that how can you make such a nasty, sweeping statement? Being pro life, is about valuing ALL life! It is not about hating anyone.

So when people don't agree with you, you just label them what ever you fancy?

edam someone posted about her DD being given minutes to live as her disabilities where so severe she's now 8

My thoughts exactly Remains.

that's heartening, dotty, but it doesn't mean that every baby with an appalling disability will live. Or that you or I have any right to tell someone else what to do with their body.

MrsDeVere you are, as usual, spot on.

I am confused by the term (late) termination/abortion tbh. If someone chooses to have an abortion at 16 weeks for whatever the reasons, then the foetus will die...end of. It will be phsically and emotionally ( I was offered late termination BTW due to my son's abnormalities which were deemed not compatible with life - he recently turned 7, as mentioned previously).

When abortion/termination occurs at 37 weeks, is that not euthanasia? The baby wil survive in most cases without the need for any medical intervention therefore in order to end it's life someone has to actively kill it, allbeit by injection.........sorry but that does not sit right with me. Surely it's much kinder to alow the child (not a foetus IMO at that stage) to be adopted into a family who will love and cherish him/her?

Any thoughts on that?

It's the pro-lifers who are the bigots. They hate women and think that women are not people entitled to autonomy, but domestic animals whose behaviour must be legally restricted. Pro-lifers disapprove of women having sex for pleasure, and think that those who do should have to give birth by way of teaching them what their fanjos are for. They would rather see a lot of women suffer and maybe even die from pregnancy-related complications or self-induced dangerous abortions than allow for the tiny, tiny possibility that some woman, somewhere, might decide to terminate a late pregnancy on a 'whim'. You'd have to hate women and regard them as less than fully human to believe that, given the chance, women would just terminate their pregnancies all over the place because the baby didn't go with the new carpet they wanted or something. Late abortions are very, very rare and almost always carried out due to severe abnormalities in the foetus or serious risks to the pregnant woman's health.

If you are a foetus-worshipping pro-lifer who thinks that foetuses are innocent and sacred why do you make an exception if the foetus was conceived through rape? If you were to plead for the 'innocent' foetus of a rapist to be given a chance, I wouldn't agree with you but I would be more inclined to respect your viewpoint as not being about the fact that dirty sluts who enjoy sex should be forced into unwanted motherhood in order to know their place.

That is a ridiculous and hysterica post SGB that pisses all over any valid points pro choicers have.

edam, that only works if doctors never make mistakes, but they do, like the one who nearly let my dd die.

I absolutely agree with gettinghappy-I'd go further and say that in my opinion termination post 24 weeks is murder if the unborn child is healthy and euthanasia if he/she suffers from a life threatening condition.To me 'healthy' includes cleft palate,Downs and many other conditions.I do think that where a medical condition exists it is usually identified well before 24 weeks and the mother has time to make an informed legal choice.[I actually think 24 weeks is late but that is the law].I'd like to know if those recommending legal abortion to term are parents themselves.

Kitchenroll: Nope. It's the truth. If you don't like abortions, don't have one. If you think your dislike of abortions gives you any rights over other women's bodies, or that your opinion is of any interest or relevance to another woman deciding what to do about a pregnancy, then you are a woman-hating idiot who I certainly won't be pussy-footing around.

I have no need for you to pussy foot around me thanks, but if you think I am a woman hating idiot then you are quite simply wrong. And very presumptuous about someone you have never met. There is far more hate and anger coming from you than there is from me. It makes me wonder why, because it's very sad that you should feel that way about a random on the Internet. I feel sorry for you.

FFS
No one is recommending abortion to term. How fucking ridiculous.

And yes mother of five if that makes any difference at all.

And yet again the difference is noted between a non disabled child and a disabled one. Murder/euthanaise. You either think killing an unborn child is murder or not.

Doctors making mistakes doesn't affect the issue - none of us have any right to demand to decide what happens in someone else's body.

SGB has a point - if you don't like abortion, don't have one.

I wouldn't have one, but that's beside the point. We are debating abortion so while I'm sure that no woman who finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy is going to give a shit about my opinion, I am entitled to give my opinion on here. I should be able to do that without people making assumptions about me and calling me names.

The funny thing is that people only resort to that when they have no other wy of getting their point across, which completely de values it. It's really quite pathetic.

You can't have late term abortions for the simple reason it would be murder. A person that is capable of breathing independently of its birth mother is entitled to life irrespective of whether or not it is disabled, or two headed.

Thus keeping the time to 24 weeks ensures that the foetus is not capable of sustaining life.

Thats why it is 24 weeks, it used to be 28 but they reduced it as 28 week gestation babies can live outside the womb.

24 weeks is plenty it should neither be reduced or increased.

But abortion is deciding what happens to someone elses body-the baby's.Once it is big enough to survive ouside the womb then surely it has at least a right to live.Deliver the mother and have the baby adopted.Why not??Why is that so wrong?As for the murder/euthanasia question if I had to come down on one side yes I'd call it murder but if I were otherwise condemning a baby to a short life in great pain then I suppose I could commit murder.

Ive had three abortions. My body. My choice. Two early within 10 weeks, one late at 20 weeks. All situations relevant to my life and the well being thereof.

No one should take the right away from the person carrying the child to decide whether or not they are ready and able to care for that child. For me having a child at 17 is wrong, that was my choice. Having a child with an emotional, physically abusive bully is wrong, and having a child born of rape is also not in my book the best way to go.

If you're not a woman-hating idiot, what makes you think that what other women do with their bodies is any of your business?

thegreylady - it all sounds so simple but people and situations, especially medical situations are far more complicated than that. Talk to a doctor sometime. Or a social worker.

What is simple is the principle that a woman is entitled to decide what happens to her own body. If you take that way, you are turning women into lesser beings than men, an idea which is dangerous for everyone, not least you.

I do think mysoginistic views are rife within the pro-life movement - especially as it's modern incarnations have massive fundermentalist right wing christian input (see America where pro-lifers justify killing Doctors)

Women are either saints 'sacrificing their lives/putting their own feelings aside/suffering for their child'

of they are sinners 'sluty women who don't use contraception/use abortion as contraception/have sex without thinking of the consequences/put their careers/selves before thei 'baby'' etc etc

I would echo what SG said - WHY is it your business what other women choose to do?

Ok solidgoldbrass. I don't 'know' you but after reading tpyour latest rant I'm going to have to assume you have some pretty serious issues that I don't know about.

Not once on this thread have I seen any pro life poster call a woman 'a dirty slut' as you just did. Clearly that is your deeper issue.

i guess as a pro-lifer ish -depending-on-the-circumstances- type of girl, i think the answer to SGBs question is in the fact that we are considering the body of the baby/potential baby too.

if another woman was for instance taking drugs to excess, i would't think it any of my business - i might offer some help - but - its not my business.

the potential for a baby is the thing you see

Saying "If you don't like abortion, don't have one" is not a logical argument against a point of view that sees abortion as murder. To someone who believes that the foetus is a person already, it's like saying, "If you don't like people killing children, don't kill your own".

Argue that personhood begins at birth if that's your belief, but the "none of your business what others do" argument makes no sense at all where there's a fundamental disagreement about whether there's one person involved or two.

I prefer for abortion to be legal so that it will be as safe as possible for the women who make that choice. But the absolutists on either side of the debate always sound so foolish to me. The arguments of "abortion = murder, no matter what (even if the life of the mother is at risk )" and "my body, my choice, no matter what (even at term because I wanted the other gender )" are equally dogmatic and simplistic.