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?

yes they are - and they would die wouldn;t they - if nature took it's course

is US that gives them life

Viable with a lot of help is not viable - and you said VIABLE not alive :)

Actually I think I said compatible with life because that was the term you used in your post - that babies weren't compatible with life before 30 weeks. No baby can live completely independently though and even some babies born at term require interventions (possibly painful) I'm not sure that means that they are incompatible with life though...

I think perhaps we need to totally remove the legal aspect of the argument. What is or is not currently the law cant really have any bearing on the morality of the arguments for each side. Bringing the current law into the argument just scews things dont you think?

Re your point on termination/murder - ah! but therein lies the rub does it not. That is where pro-lifers and pro-choicers disagree.

My personal opinion is -

I am anti-abortion (i dont think anyone is pro abortion!)

I appreciate sometimes there are awful awful situations where it is the "lesser of two evils" - a severely life limiting disability, rape, real risk to mother's life.

"Allowing" abortion in these above situations goes against all the arguments I would make for my anti-stance but life is NOT b&w and society simply MUST make exceptions.

Life is soooo complicated sometimes - we simply MUST have sympathy for those in the above situations. How utterly awful it must be for them to have to make that decision.

I dont know what I would do if it were me.

But abortion = death. That is just a fact

No it is not a fact but an opinion.

You clearly believe that life begins at conception, I do not.

I think to talk about the 'death' of something that is not capable of sustaining life on its' own is misleading and unduly emotive.

There is not an absolute answer to this question and depends on what definition of 'life' you use.

"the foetus that you worship" - ffs sgb you can't be for real.

Do you worship women, or just believe in defending their rights? Do you recognise the difference between the two? Do you recognise that others can believe in defending something without actually worshipping it?

People hold different views than you do about whether an embryo / foetus / full-term baby just before birth has (or should have, under the law) a right to life. For most of those people, it has nothing to do with hating women or with worshipping anyone.

There are those who have used the abortion argument as a stick to beat women with and a means to control our bodies. And access to legal, safe abortion has been a positive thing for many women. I've already said on this thread that I prefer for abortion to be legal because at least it can be kept relatively safe for the woman.

But if you genuinely believe that the two sides of the argument are divided into "pro-woman / reasonable" and "anti-woman / foetus - worshipper", you're either very badly informed or so steeped in simplistic dogma that you can't appreciate a complex ethical question when you see one.

I appreciate sometimes there are awful awful situations where it is the "lesser of two evils" - a severely life limiting disability, rape, real risk to mother's life.

But the end result is still the same - you have ended a life. The foetus is no less a life because it is disabled, the result of rape or is being sacrificed for the mother. It is still the innocent victim that pro-lifers are apparently so concerned about. If it is wrong to kill a foetus (as pro-lifers insist) because it is deemed 'murder' then it is wrong - end of. You cannot be pro-life and say "Ah, but...." That is totally inconsistent with your beliefs.

If you are pro-choice however, you do still leave the woman with a choice - she doesn't have to have an abortion. And many women who are pro-choice will choose not to have an abortion - a position that is perfectly consistent with their beliefs.

I think it's fine to say Abortion = death. so what. Rather the death of a foetus than an unwanted baby imo.

Some foetuses are aborted at an age when they would be capable of sustaining life though. Do you accept that abortion = death for them?

"But the end result is still the same - you have ended a life. The foetus is no less a life because it is disabled, the result of rape or is being sacrificed for the mother. It is still the innocent victim that pro-lifers are apparently so concerned about. If it is wrong to kill a foetus (as pro-lifers insist) because it is deemed 'murder' then it is wrong - end of" agree up to here

"You cannot be pro-life and say "Ah, but...." That is totally inconsistent with your beliefs" disagree I can be and believe what I want. No one can tell me what is or isnt inconsitent with my believes. Just like I cant tell someone who is pro choice who uses the argument of viability and "able to survive" without intervention is incompatible with no allowing the post-birth termination of disabled children or adults.

I am always amazed at the outrage shown if someone says abortion should be allowed up to term, yet people think it is ok for a disabled baby!

"portsfanatic Sun 26-Feb-12 21:23:33
I appreciate sometimes there are awful awful situations where it is the "lesser of two evils" - a severely life limiting disability, rape, real risk to mother's life.

But the end result is still the same - you have ended a life. The foetus is no less a life because it is disabled, the result of rape or is being sacrificed for the mother. It is still the innocent victim that pro-lifers are apparently so concerned about. If it is wrong to kill a foetus (as pro-lifers insist) because it is deemed 'murder' then it is wrong - end of. You cannot be pro-life and say "Ah, but...." That is totally inconsistent with your beliefs."

who are you to tell anyone what their beliefs are?

If i believe that then ...i believe that.

All this means is that you can't put me and others like me in some right wing box of bible bashing nut jobs where there are no exceptions

i believe what i believe. You may think i must believe in pro choice or pro life and there isn't a middle

but for my beliefs i actually make up my own mind - and i have another way.

so do not presume to tell me that i cannot believe...what i actually do believe.

i am choosing to ignore SGBs commnets at this juncture. I know she is an intelligent woman who is more than capable of discussion and a very capable word smith. She is choosing to be argumentative and use inflamatory language which i find at odds with the pro woman POV espoused

It still remains, actually, a very simple matter. Abortion should be available to any woman who wants it, at any stage of her pregnancy. Because women are autonymous beings and it is not up to anyone else to decide that they should be compelled to continue a pregnancy they do not want.
Because women matter more than foetuses. End of.

The fact is NO baby can survive without intervention they are totally dependent on adults whether disabled or not all deserve a chance not just 'normal' babies its bloody sickening the attitude to disability on these boards

And what about after the baby is born but still attached by the umbilical cord?

Any stage? To any woman?

I agree with pushit

"Just like I cant tell someone who is pro choice who uses the argument of viability and "able to survive" without intervention is incompatible with no allowing the post-birth termination of disabled children or adults.'

Or how many people who call themselves 'pro-choice' are actually only 'pro-choice' up until a point and then think that it should no longer be the woman's choice. Are they women haters as well SGB?

"yet people think it is ok for a disabled baby"

No, actually they don't. As many people have said now, it is usually for disabilities that are incompatible with life.

"you can't put me and others like me in some right wing box of bible bashing nut jobs where there are no exceptions"

Amen maybe that's the wrong word to use , Custardo

I think it's fine for a couple/woman to make a decision to abort her own child because of a disability. Lots of people do. People should be allowed to make choices about their own pregnancies.

I'm not telling anyone what they can and can't believe.. I am just pointing out the inconsistency in their beliefs. If anyone believes abortion is murder then it is murder whatever the reasons are for it. How can you have a defensible and an indefensible murder?

I seem to have struck a raw nerve.....

But what if a woman wanted to abort her baby weeks before birth to spite her partner, or because she freaked out at the thought of motherhood. In reality I don't think doctors would do those kinds of late abortions, but regardless I think the pregnant woman has a responsibility to the welfare of her unborn child and that society is entitled to enforce that.

But I balance this belief with a strong recognition that women benefit greatly from control over their fertility and that safe, early abortion is a must.

The debate over disability is distressing - I'm not sure we have it right when there clearly is discrimination in utero.

sportsfanatic, in the same way that you can have an ethical dilemma about the defensibility of euthanasia, or reasonable force / self defense.

It shouldn't be so hard to understand how a person can believe that an action is fundamentally not ethical, but recognise that there may be circumstances where there is no other reasonable option.

I can't understand a mindset that is so black-and-white that it sees this position as inconsistent, rather than complex.

Canada despite its liberalism has few late abortions, we have over 90% happening by 13 weeks. If the process needed no explanation of how you were ill, unstable or damaged by continuing with your pregnancy then the system could be quicker.

So to presume that women will have late abortions to spite their partners as cited above, or for anything other than a strong reason is both contrary to the evidence and misogynistic by implication.

Equalising the situation for a disabled and non disabled foetus also makes sense and helps remove pressures to terminate that some parents of disabled foetuses may feel.

Placing women into deserving and non deserving categories buys into an unpleasant and puritanical view of women that is again misogynistic in its origin. The same values are seen when disabled or female foetuses/babies are regarded as lesser.

Abortion on demand to term increases women's power and choice rather than the number of late abortions. To presume otherwise implies massive distrust of women.

To assert that women should be counselled through adoption or compelled to continue with pregnancies after rape if not able to take the map are a couple of the most revolting things I have read on mumsnet.

I am ok with the rights of a foetus being dependent as it is, on its mother. As a society we would be better placed concentrating on the rights of those born and neglected. There are enough of these children around to keep us all busy.

crushco I am with you on your last line; My biggest problem with conservative types who are anti-abortion is the fact that they don't seem to give a shit about a child once it's been born. In the US, for example, the people shouting the loudest and most publicly against abortion are often the same ones who would fight against universal health care for children. It makes no sense and it makes them the worst kind of hypocrite.

But I don't buy into the idea it's misogynistic, or reveals anything about someone's feelings about women in general, to be against abortion on demand all the way to term.

Individual people do things that most of us would think were abhorrent. Women and men have killed their own, post-birth, we-all-agree-it's-a-person-now children in order to punish the other parent, or because it's the "wrong" gender, or because a new partner doesn't want to take on someone else's child, or because they balked at the enormous responsibility of parenthood.

Women are individuals, are we not? It would be ridiculous to say that full-term abortion for reasons such as these would be common. As you and others have said, most women wouldn't dream of it. But to say that it would never happen is naiive, and to argue that it would be so rare it wouldn't matter seems as disturbing to me as to say that infanticide should be legal since it's relatively rare here anyway.

I'd be against abortion on demand past the point of viability, not because I "mistrust women", but because the fact that something might only happen rarely, doesn't mean that it should be legal.

"But what if a woman wanted to abort her baby weeks before birth to spite her partner,"

Yes, it's very important that we legislate for what evil, vindictive bitches women are.

I'm sure the data shows that there is a very big problem with women wanting very late term abortions out of spite.

Because that's just how women are - wanting the foetus they can feel kicking inside them destroyed just to hurt a man.

I think once you are making arguments that misogynistic, any possibility of reasonable discussion is long over.

We have to make it impossible for women to have late term abortions out of spite? Really?

Fucking hell.