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?

Antsy - currently at 24 weeks unless her life is in danger and/or there is a medical reason for the abortion.

going now bumblemummy seems to have an agenda

No, I was asking you to clarify because currently the law does not allow abortion to term for non-medical reasons. I was trying to determine whether you agreed with the current law or thought abortion should be allowed to term for any reason. There is actually a diffference - hence the law. It isn't something I'm just coming up with on my own.

no moreso than anyone else on this thread but I guess it's easier to just leave when the questions get a bit tricky...

Its currently being investigated, but nothing is going to change.

I have more respect for the extreme pro-lifers in some ways, at least they hold a consistent ethical position. They're abhorrent but they are logical and true to their beliefs. It's all this in-between, controlling, lets talk about the issues bullshit that I find so distasteful. The disabilist "oh its bad to have later abortions but fine if its disabled", and the "right to life except in XY and Z case" which show such blatant inconsistency and lack of conviction.

If you believe a foetus is a human life and has rights, why can you so easily draw such arbitrary lines as to when and how its ok to get rid of it? Social reasons bad, medical reasons good, early good, late bad...they all have the same outcome. This angst over laws and timelines just seems like empty posturing covering the fact that you don't actually have any sort of consistent ethical stance.

actually not quite gone. It wasn't a tricky question, you asked me if a believed in late abortion for what ever reason and I do. I'm getting bored with the way you are reshaping the argument to meet your own ends.

Peppy, most people don't see things in black and white. Few people like the idea of abortion but they like the idea of women dying from botched illegal jobs or just generally not having control over their fertility even less.

It is not unreasonable to place limits on something involving a developing life. It's not just one for the philosophers, but for the doctors as well - though there have been some shocking examples of doctors doing late abortions no questions asked, I don't think killing a healthy baby in utero that would otherwise survive outside the womb would get many takers.

I agree with the woman's right to autonomy over her own body at whatever cost to the fetus. I am uncomfortable with late abortions but would still defend the right for a woman to have one.

I am a feminist and so completely have an issue with gender selection, perhaps noone should be told.

Its not about it being black and white. Its about holding two opposite ideas at the same time and trying to craft an argument from both.

If you can't find a logical position surely the default should be that the woman in question can decide better than you can and leave it up to her?

I absolutely support the right of abortion on demand to term. For any reason whatsoever.
Hypothetical woman wants to abort because she's been dumped by the bloke she hoped would marry her? Up to her.
Wants to abort because the latest scan suggests the baby's going to be ginger? Up to her.
Wants to abort because she fancies going on holiday instead of giving birth? Fine by me. IT'S NONE OF MY BUSINESS.

Basically until abortion to term on demand is available to any woman who wants it, women still won't be free and equal. There will always be a little reservoir of 'But you can't be allowed this because you're really an incubator, not a person.'

Ok, where, thanks for answering the question. I'm not sure why you think I am reshaping the argument by asking you to clarify your position becuase you did not specifically say abortion to term in your original post.

Peppy, those argument aren't really that inconsistent - abortion for 'medical reasons' for most people would be a condition that would either kill the mother or because the baby won't survive. People have clarified their position on that quite a few times on this thread. I don't think the examples you have given are any more inconsistent than someone saying that a woman should have a right to choose what happens to her body but only up until 24 weeks...after that even if she was raped/abused/changes her mind then it's ok for her choice not to matter.

What changes at 24 weeks that suddenly removes a woman's human rights I wonder? Other than our current stance legislation wise on what is considered moral.

24 weeks, does 6 months of existence mean it is acceptable to essentially hold a woman to ransom for 3 months against her will?

And how do you balance these medical and non medical abortion reasons?

If a mother of three is informed that her best interests would be served better by terminating a pregnancy are her rights more important than her foetus? What about her children's rights?

So many variables, I honestly see it as an all or nothing scenario, these time constraints are pointless, either you give a foetus full human rights at conception ad then outlaw all abortion or you subscribe to the belief that a woman's right to decide what happens to get own body supersedes anyone's morality, including society as a whole.

It's as simple as that for me

SGB, if men were also able to have babies the law would apply to them too. We just happen to be the only sex that these laws apply to.

Or these laws are only fashioned in this way because we are the only sex that they apply to?

How exactly are they old fashioned Peppy?

Many laws have a moral basis, and I don't think men have the monopoly in thinking there is something immoral about abortion to term.

Nobody said old-fashioned.

Be moral by all means, allow your morality to guide your decisions, I'd just prefer it didn't interfere with mine if that's okay with you.

Sorry peppy - misread your last post!

But antsy, why have any laws at all then? Why not let morality be everyone's guide? It just doesn't work that way.

We should only make laws that are strictly necessary. And we don't need one to decide what goes on inside anothers body.
We make laws for the good of society, to ensure the maximum social harmony. My uterus is not societies business. We used to make laws about whether you were allowed to be gay or not, but we realised that what people choose to do with their bodies was their own business. This is the same.

No one's answered my umbilical cord point - is it ok to kill a baby still attached to by the umbilical cord?? Surely you pro-choices must have to say yes. all of your aguments still apply to this situation. maybe you will say yes!!! it wouldnt surprise me tbh... if you didnt it would severely undermine your argument.

i am honestly genuinely interested to know.

Laws are also there to protect the vulnerable peppy.

Vulnerable people.

Ahhhhh...A baby outside the womb is entirely different. Weird question.