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?

AThing, I'm not sure where that rant has come from or what it is based on tbh. I'm not sure what you have found to be 'proof' of anything. You say the law doesn't exist, I've shown you that it does. If you want to argue about how/when/if it is being enforced then go ahead but it is there in writing.

"HAHA! Well, you said it yourself. Theory is fine as long as it is not applied to you."

Are you serious with this? So much for your enlightened debate! Thats the whole point of being pro-choice, just because I assert the right for all women to do something doesn't mean that I want to do it myself. Isn't that fucking obvious?
I defend your right to throw yourself of a cliff if you like, doesn't mean I want to do it myself.

Your posts were quite eloquent (if often daft), but really with this one?

My foetus was alive when we got past the 12 week scan and I knew I would keep it, that's when it became a baby TO ME.

And the LAW is fine, but it doesn't mean that I would abort a 38wk fetus.

Larry: The fact that it's got fuck all to do with you. It is not your business. You are not the owner of a womb. So your opinions about what should occur within OTHER PEOPLE'S bodies are totally irrelevant. Even if you did have a womb, your viewpoint would only be relevant with regard to what happened in your womb. If you don't like abortions, don't have one. That's all there is to say.

'like' SGB's post

I think SGB and others have a lot to be thankful for that we have reliable contraception and safe abortion. These are not "god given" rights, but the result of medical advances and tolerant and rational societies.

These wonderful advances do not let us off the hook though on the ethical questions. And again I will note that no respectable doctor would kill a healthy fetus capable of surviving outside of the womb.

Peppy, yes it's still unclear why you think it is ok to terminate until term. 'Woman's choice' doesn't hold much weight when you are talking about a 37 week old foetus that is more than capable of life outside the woman. It seems that you agree with the idea in theory but I hope that in practice you would consider it horrific enough that you can understand why a law prevents it.

You might have safe abortion. Not all of us have access to it. Tends to sharpen the debate somewhat.

And if no doctor would do it in practice why do you need to legislate against it at all?

Peppy,

Your previous post was entirely self contradictory. It made sense until one read it twice.

I am discussing at what point a foetus is a human life and has rights. This is fundamental to the entire discussion and, depending on what you think, it has many corollaries. This concept of life is an absolute one. It cannot be relative to the woman's desire to keep the foetus/baby. If you do not believe an 8.5 month old foetus is a human, then the medical establishment has a much lower obligation to maintain that foetus's heart beating than were it a living human.

You can dance around this issue as much as you like but it will not go away.

How is it unclear? I believe that women should have the ultimate control over their own bodies, far above any rights assigned to a foetus. How much clearer can I possibly be?

I don't understand why a law is needed to prevent it, since I don't think it would happen if there were no law. There is no law to prevent it in Canada. Are Canadian women somehow better than us?

The rant has come from my utter disgust at your complacency and lies.

The law is recognised to be confused and legally inadequate.

And yet you point to guidelines you know to be unenforceable, you know to have failed women, and you insist that everything is AOK.

That is a special kind of evil.

Many people who are pro choice have their own cut off, many pro choice disagree about aborting because of disabilities. I, for one, think that unless their is an over whelming argument then abortion post 24 wks should not be offered, but the law already stipulates this.

The concept of life is not absolute. There are no agreed definitions on when life begins. It's not always clear where it ends. Also I never said it is related to a womens desire to keep the baby.

I don't believe a foetus of any gestation is a full human life until it is born. Why must you insist I don't know my opinion, just because you don;t like it?

I am not dancing around any issue, I have been as clear as can possible be. Do I need to draw pictures? words don't seem to be working.

there (oops)

SGB,

"Larry: The fact that it's got fuck all to do with you. It is not your business. You are not the owner of a womb. So your opinions about what should occur within OTHER PEOPLE'S bodies are totally irrelevant. Even if you did have a womb, your viewpoint would only be relevant with regard to what happened in your womb. If you don't like abortions, don't have one. That's all there is to say."

For asininity, that takes the biscuit. I assume you have children? If so, did you tell your partner that nothing in your pregnancy had anything (or in your polite version "fuck all") to do with him?

Women still need men to get pregnant. The DNA of the offspring comes from both parties. Most women still expect men to be responsible both financially and physically for their children (as they should be). Until you buy your DNA and go and live in a female only commune, men will be members of society with legitimate input into this debate.

Until men carry babies I'd say their input is mostly irrelevant.

"I don't believe a foetus of any gestation is a full human life until it is born"

So, do you accept the corollary that unborn babies should always have the lowest priorities within medical budgets?

Complacency and lies? Where exactly? Are you out in the street campaigning for a woman's right to have abortion to term and ensuring that every woman who requests an abortion for medical reasons after 24 weeks is getting one? No? Then you are failing women too my dear. Is that a special kind of evil too? Personally I think supporting the idea of terminating a foetus until birth for any reason is considerably more evil.

"Until men carry babies I'd say their input is mostly irrelevant."

So do you accept the corollary that abortions should be paid for by a hypothecated tax from women only?

Not necessarily, since its not an automatic corollary. It is in fact a huge leap, based on your opinion of my stance, rather than my stance.

Men can have an input into the debate. However they can't have any control over a uterus unless they can grow their own.

No Larry, unless babies are paid for solely by men. Until we make men completely accountable for their children I fail to see how the prevention of them arriving in this world would be the financial responsibility of women,.

athing - who are you talking to?

I am in total agreement with Peppy that safe abortion should be legally available and readily accessible to women everywhere. My caveat is that it preferably should be early - I couldn't say exactly when but, going back a couple dozen pages, Norway seems to have it about right.

re: rights of the foetus - it is so tricky when the law is involved and introduces the prospect of women being prosecuted for endangering a foetus by drinking, etc. This is an eternal debate in many U.S. states and I can see why pro-choicers worry about the erosion of abortion rights around it. Yet it is also horrific to read the story a year ago about the Philadelphia doctor who performed late term abortions by snipping spinal cords. He was charged with murder.

Peppy,

We clearly do not have any control over a uterus except for doctors. Would you like to exclude males from medicine in this area? You have not addressed my question in any meaningful way. I think it is a reasonable corollary. It is based on the axiom that human medicine prioritises humans over non human. I don't think that axiom is largely disputed, nor do I think that using your statement plus that axiom, it is any leap at all to the question I asked. It is pure logic.

Posie,

HAve you ever come across a linkage between taxation and representation? It was very popular in the States in the late 18th century. If you expect men's taxes to pay towards abortions, they have a right to take part in the debate.

They absolutely are. It is called contraception. And, even if that fails (or they don't bother with it) they still have an absolute right to abortion until 24 weeks. If they fail on both the above counts, they lose that right, as THEY HAVE TO INVOLVE OTHER PEOPLE INCLUDING, BUT NOT SOLELY, THEIR UNBORN CHILDIN THEIR DECISION. What is hard about that for you to understand?

larrygrylls.
The one person I know who had a late abortion, was not aware she was pregnant for a long time. Why? She was going through a deeply traumatic time and the idea never entered her head for starters as she was going through a hell of a lot of other stuff. She wasn't at liberty to get access to a pregnancy test. In fact she was denied proper medical care full stop. She was failed by the people who were caring for her and denied her rights that anyone else would and should have got. On top of that, there was a pretty damn good mental health case and a physical case to be answered. What happened to her was scandalous and outrageous, but I don't doubt its a more regular occurrence than I would like to believe. I don't want to go into anymore detail than that, but it changed my opinion on things that should be taken into consideration and the fact there are rare cases where flexibility and not having a cut off point where her rights suddenly become ignored. It was a tragic and wholly avoidable situation but not one of the mother's making.

Just because you can not imagine a scenario which does mean someone looses their rights before 24 weeks, does not mean it does not occur.

I am pro-choice as I believe that to put the rights of an unborn child above those of a pregnant mother will always mean that a pregnant mother is left in a legal situation where her worth in society can become completely dehumanised and below everyone else's.