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?

'social' is the term used to describe abortions performed for non-medical reasons.

Michelle Harte, for one. She had to go to the UK, having a later abortion than necessary. She still died. She's not the only one.
Very pro-life, huh?

Who made the social definition, is it a legal term in law

No idea but it is commonly used.

Yes commonly used as to manipulate peoples perception of the reasons for abortion i assume social reason also translates as 'not very good reason' in prolife terms but again not your role to judge someones decisions. by categorising them as medical - good, social -bad

Bumbley: 'social' is the term used to describe abortions performed for non-medical reasons.

Used by whom, apart from anti-abortion groups?

She didn't die from her pregnancy though - she had cancer. (I didn't realise that she had died from it) The doctors felt that her life wasn't in immediate danger when they made the ruling. If anything you should blame the doctors for not recognising that her condition could/would deteriorate without her medication. If the doctors had thought she would die without that medication then she would have been allowed to have that abortion under the current law.

OneHand *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.*

Because a situation is complex it does not mean it cannot be inconsistent. The two are not mutually exclusive. Nor does recognition of inconsistency automatically mean a black and white mindset. It simply means a recognition that a stance (whether that stance is simple or complex) is inconsistent with a stated view i.e. holding strongly to one view but then hedging by saying OTOH we could allow if...etc.

Woolly - its not just used but anti-abortion groups. Abortion for 'social' reasons/'social abortions' are commonly used terms which I'm sure you are very aware of. If you'd like to try to encourage a change in that then please go ahead.

The issue is attaching personal morality to an issue that has such far reaching considerations. There is no law being introduced to drag women to the abortion clinic if hey don't suit some ideal of parenthood, you are given the right to access a safe alternative to a forced pregnancy.

To myself its not to do with the concept of existence or right to life and has everything to do with being allowed a basic human right to govern your own body.

Be realistic, women are not waddling up to abortion clinics at 38 weeks to ask for an abortion because they decided that they didn't want stretch marks, if a woman is considering something like that then there will be something motivating that decision which she ideally would be supported in resolving.

But what if there isn't? What if I decided at 8.5 months pregnant I didn't want to do it, for no reason in particular, who has the right to prevent me from doing what I want I with my body?

Does anyone really have the right?

I'm waffling, I'd like to see these people who are so secure in the knowledge that life is life look into the face of a gang raped as traumatised 11 year old and tell them that they should be forced to carry the child of one of the rapists because rig an ideal they feel should be more important that a woman's right to choose.

Emotive, irritating is it not...

Her cancer worsened due to the pregnancy, which lasted far longer than necessary, and also changed treatment options.

And it wasn't doctors who denied the abortion, they recommended it, it was the CUH ethics board containing legal and non-medical personel.

You shouldn't really be arguing such a sensitive topic when you know fuck all about it. She's DEAD. And while dying, she had to fight for an abortion, be denied one and have to travel abroad with all the extra trauma that brings , all while fighting cancer. If you are seriously arguing with me that thats not entirely fucking WRONG from any perspective, there is something seriously wrong with you.

well I for one am willing to admit I do judge women's reasons for abortions. I imagine most people do. But since I fully support easy and early access to abortion, without undue obstacles, I don't think any reason should be legally questioned.

However once we are into the later term of pregnancy, I think a non-medical reason is probably not going to cut it under the terms of human decency, no matter what is going on in the woman's life.

Maybe you could define reasons as 'medical reasons' and 'reasons pro-lifers don't agree with'

oops, should have made that But since I fully support easy and early access to abortion, without undue obstacles, I don't think any reason should be legally questioned at the early stages.

Antsy, yes, currently they do have that right because the foetus has rights after a certain point.

Also, how many pregnant from being gang raped 11 yos have abortions every year? Extreme examples don't really do these discussions any favours as discussed earlier in the thread.

you know i'm not even sure there should be late abortions for medical reasons but I leave that to the medical profession to decide. I am definitely disturbed to think of how many are aborted for Downs, etc. when many of these children would have happiness and a good quality of life. But faced with the dilemma myself I'm still not sure what I would have done.

I always wonder what people think would happen if we removed the rule of law from abortion.

Would we see a thousand women legging it to the nearest BPA clinic?

Why the need to legislate at all other than to continue to hold women's rights as something that must be earned?

I know if someone had turned to me in later pregnancy and said completing my pregnancy would lead to a great risk to my own health it would not have mattered, I wouldn't have aborted I would have continued, because at that point, biologically I was bonded with my child.

So this is why I detest the insistence that late term abortion is something that is a norm, people roll it out with pictures of premature babies to try and provoke a reaction.

I agree antsy no body has an abortion with out a good reason, especially the late ones.

Bumbley, I am willing to bet it would be the same number as women who decide to abort because they want a different gender.

And I made the point that it was an extreme example.

An irrelevant example to me, there is no reason more justified than another when it comes to abortion.

This concept of the rights of a foetus, how do you balance that against the basic right to dictate how your body is used?

At what point does the woman cease to be a consideration?

Because you can't go trusting women with responsibility for their own bodies. Not able for it, they need the law to stop them doing Bad Things.

Antsy, I don't think legislation around abortion implies that women's rights must be earned, but rather enshrines them in law so that the right can be enforced. But obviously we as a society still think there should be limits on when and how abortion is performed, and for what reasons (e.g., the original question over gender selection, which is illegal.)

I also think the vast majority will have abortions for "good reasons" after consideration. But not all will, and some could benefit from counselling and the like that has been vilified as somehow insulting to suggest a women might not always have the answers to major life decisions at her fingertips.

Peppy, you're right, I don't know the ins and outs of her particular case and why she was not allowed an abortion for medical reasons when others have been. I hope it has been investigated if the pregnancy did in fact accelerate her condition when it had been decided that her life wasn't actually in immediate danger from it.

Wheredid - why don't you stop side stepping the original question. Do you agree with abortion to term for any reason even if it is non-medical? A quick google will tell you what medical grounds for late term abortions are if you aren't familiar with them.

Yes, chandellina, I think many people feel the same for conditions that are not actually life-limiting. It does feel like discrimination and eugenics. :(

Yes i agree with late abortions. your use of the words medical and non-medical are used to obfuscate the argument.

and also bear in mind just because abortions are legal it doesn't mean that people will be forced to have these abortions. it will still be a matter of CHOICE.