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 peppy, and so the issue is when the foetus becomes a person. At the moment that is 24 weeks by law. I'm really not sure the argument that a foetus is not a person until it is actually born is going to work if that is what you are suggesting.

Oooohh I seee righhtttt..... why is it? its still attahced by the umbil cord, still part of mum's body, still entirely dependent.

a baby in the womb is extremely vulnerable and does need protection. This need is balanced in forward thinking societies with the woman's need to exert control over her fertility and avoid unsafe abortion. I don't begin to say when life begins but I think it is possible to find a balance between those two things.

It may seem unfortunate from a feminist point of view but women never truly can be "free and equal" to men in the sense of being THE SAME as men. We bear the children and are typically better equipped to sustain them in the early months (breastmilk). This is always going to make us different, though many societies have tried and for some part succeeded in making things more equitable with maternity/paternity rights.

I don't see why it doesn't work. An unborn foetus is not legally a person even after 24 weeks (you can't be charged with murder or even the far lesser destruction of a foetus until after 36 weeks iirc).

Defining a person as someone with its own body who can breathe on its own and eat on its own and is not inside someone else is hardly outrageous. You might not agree, but its not a stretch.

Not entirely dependent, and legally is alive.

(And patronising riiiighhtttt just reads shit)

' with its own body who can breathe on its own and eat on its own' some premature babies can do these things and some full-term babies can't. Im oretty sure you are not goung to say that a child that needs to be on a ventilator and tube fed is not a person - or are you? Again, things just don't fit into nice little boxes.

Breathe without it's mother.... a ventilator is not the same.

[why do pro life arguments always sound so stupid?]

no no not patronising! meant riiight as in me being thoughtful. sorry if sounded patronising!

'legally is alive' - I wonder of you can be alive illegally then....

see again bumb you sound like an arse. The law recognises the born baby as a person.

Posie, Why do some pro-choicers have to resort to insults instead of having a civilised discussion/debate? Defining life as something that is able to breathe on its own and eat on its own is a bit of a weak argument IMO because you then have to go into what 'on its own' actually means.

Actually let's just why do YOU, posie feel the need to resort to insults - it just makes you sound like an arse. Maybe you are one...

"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."

And, all on the NHS, paid for by everyone? So, because you are a woman, you have a right to use abortion as an alternative to contraception? you have a right to have sex without thinking of the consequences? You have a right to ask a doctor to perform infanticide on an 8.5 month embryo?

Does feminism absolve women of all responsibility for their behaviour and allow them to take advantage of any other member of society, just because they feel like it? That is a funny sort of equality.

And what if I, as a man, decide that I don't like my nose? Do I have a right to demand a rhinoplasty on the NHS? Or, as I have said, that I am a bit miserable and don't feel like living any more? Does that mean it is my right to ask a doctor to terminate my life?

SGB, you are in fantasy land if you think that society is merely there to facilitate your whims, merely because you are female.

Women have both the privilege and responsibility of becoming pregnant. I cannot demand the right to carry a baby because I am a male. Equally you cannot pretend that your right to bear children comes without any concommitant responsibilities. Males and females have different biologies. Modern medicine is not there merely to facilitate women's rights to a different biological destiny.

Good post larry.

LEGAL terms. LEGAL terms.

That's what I'm talking about, obviously. In the eyes of the law a fetus becomes a baby at the point of birth. So when that murderer killed a heavily pregnant woman he was found guilty of murdering one person, not two.

Also posie, the law recognises a 24 week old foetus as a person too. It has the right not to be aborted after that date.

Oh Larry. I pity you.

Abortion is not contraception.

"Does feminism absolve women of all responsibility for their behaviour and allow them to take advantage of any other member of society, just because they feel like it? That is a funny sort of equality." No Feminism would like a woman to have autonomy over her own body and law cannot choose which women to support, the victim of rape or the pregnant every second week woman.... so it has to offer abortion to everyone.

No it doesn't.

"the law recognises a 24 week old foetus as a person too. It has the right not to be aborted after that date."

No, it doesn't.

As has already been pointed out to you, a foetus doesn't become a person until it is born.

If you kill a 38 week pregnant woman, you will not be done for murdering the foetus.

Posie,

Your version of "feminism" may want many things. However, many many women who would term themselves feminists (I would hazard, the majority) would disagree with abortion beyond the current legal limit. Luckily, it is not going to happen.

By the way, do people like you stand by your principles by either helping out at an abortion clinic or making a voluntary additional contribution to the NHS to allow more abortions to happen without compromising vital medical help to people with serious conditions?

What is it then? I'm interested. What do you refer to a post-24 week old foetus that can no longer be aborted? What has it become to distinguish it from the 23 week old foetus that could be aborted? It has become something different in law - do you not have a term to recognise that? It just seems like denial to me. As if you need to detach yourself from the reality of it by not recognising it as a human life. I suppose that makes it easier for you even though it doesn't actually make any sense in practice.

Yes Larry I donate money specifically to the NHS to give more abortions. I also support Greenpeace and yet have never sailed in a large ship fighting the Japanese whaling community.

bumb....simple a 24wk fetus.

And what is different posie? Is it now a life afayac? Why is it now entitled to life?

I can't believe there are some women, who are mothers who think it is ok for a healthy mother to kill a healthy full term baby. That is literally sickening.