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?

Cherry,

The law allows exceptions in the case of maternal health (both physical and mental) and I totally agree with that. I don't understand why, though, very late on, a woman cannot have the child (by immediate C section if necessary) and it put up for adoption.

I have addressed all of questions in meaningful ways, however you have insisted on being obtuse and have failed to understand basic premises despite them being delineated over and over again.

I'm not going to bother anymore, I couldn't possibly be any clearer and if you refuse to understand there is little point.

you can't talk about adoption round here - that is just not an option for some reason.

Peppy,

Well both our posts stand to be judged on the basis of clarity by others. I am pretty happy with mine.

Larrygrylls. With all due respect, the taxation argument is bogus. I know little or nothing about farming economics. That means my contribution to any discussion about it is basically worthless. Nor do I know enough about gender reassignment surgery to make a meaningful comment about the provision of this on the NHS. Yet I still pay my taxes and leave the decisions about the correct way to spend them to those who know better than me.

Paying your taxes, however, does not give you the right to force a woman to give birth against her will. To suggest you have the right to dictate to an adult human how they control what goes on in their own body is tantamount to slavery.

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

Was that the case for your own children too? Would you have been happy for the doctors to think that way if your foetus/baby was in distress?

Slug,

It is not bogus. If you pay your taxes and feel strongly about farming subsidies or NHS gender reassignment surgery, you absolutely have a right to have your voice heard.

And fathers are not remote from pregnancy and birth. They may not have given birth themselves but they have supported their partners through it and can be pretty educated on the subject. Can an emeritus professor of obstetrics not have an opinion on women as he does not possess a womb?

People seem to keep forgetting that after 24 weeks we do dictate to women what they can do wrt the foetus inside them. The majority seem ok with this.

bumbley - maybe best to leave it at that, because it is indeed the few who are vehement on the right of abortion to term.

If you knew the circumstance larry, you'd understand why.

You make the assumption that a baby in that situation would be adopted too. rather than enter into the care system indefinitely and all that goes with that. Not to mention at some point that child asking about why they had been abandoned by their mother (assuming they were capable of doing that of course). All in all, with all the circumstances, I just can't disagree with what the mother did. She did what she did, taking the baby into consideration as far I am concerned. As sad as they were. She didn't just do it because of her own feelings.

I also feel that as soon as unborn babies have rights, it leaves mothers wide open to certain abuses. What happened to the woman I know was extreme, but from it I can see how similar things could be used against others, if rights changed and how it would have a very negative impact on women's role in society potentially.

Yes Larry, you have a right to be heard, but your opinion carrys no more weight than any other non-farmer with no understanding of the issues does.

You have no idea how furious the forced birthers make me. Really!! How dare you think you have the right to pontificate to a woman about what she does with her own body. For millenia men have controlled women by first controlling their reproductive choices. Not that they've ever been particularly good at caring for the results of those forced births of course

Well you know what? It's the 21st century. Women have fought long and hard to have the right to say what goes on within their own uterus. Can I raise one finger and say F*k you! and f**k the lot of you who want to drag us kicking and screaming back to the days of back street abortions and no choice. It's not your body, you are never going to understand just how devastating an unwanted pregnancy can be, nor will you ever understand how much a pregnancy and birth can devastate your body.

At best we may take your opinion under advisement but if you want to have babies go and have them with someone who wants to undergo the pain and danger of pregnancy and childbirth. But don't you dare think you have the right to force women to give birth.

Chandellina, what if that woman hadn't realised she was pregnant until after 24 weeks? What do you think should have happened then?

Sorry, last post was for cherry not chandellina

Slug, anyone who supports the 24 week limit is potentially a 'forced birth supporter'. A woman could just as easily decide that she wants a termination after 24 weeks. It's not just restricted to the pro-life argument.

Larry, I am sure you don't mean to patronise so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'm not sure I follow your thoughts about men being allowed to take part in the abortion debate without taking the view that men have a right to decide for a woman about her carrying a baby.

Bumbly, why assume that because I don't think its a full human life means I wouldn't want it helped if the mother wants that?
I don't think dogs are human either, I'd like my dog to be treated if I decided it was the right thing. But also I can have it put to sleep if thats what I decide is better.

actually I mean woman as opposed to mother, since its a different conotation entirely.

I am so glad this thread is rapidly approaching 1000 posts and will disappear.It contains some of the most disturbing views I have ever come across either online or in rl.I always felt I was 'pro choice' but if that means being asked to stand alongside people with attitudes like Peppy etc then I am no longer in that camp.

Well dogs aren't human so it's not really relevant to say you don't think they are a human life...

You also seem to be putting the emphasis on full now so you believe it to be human and a life but only a partial life until it is born. Is that correct? This partial life is only entitled to human rights if its mother wants it to be in your opinion?

yes, this thread has had its moments, and some interesting debates. look forward to doing it all again soon.

bumble..you always do this weird extreme argument as if you don't really get what people are saying, why is that?

Shall I ask if the 12 year old raped by her father too naive to realise she's pregnant be forced to have a baby when she discovers she's pregnant at 25 wks?

How does that have anything to do with what I just asked Posie?

It is relevant though because you seem to be arguing that human = above all other forms of life. Not sure I agree with that either.

I'm saying full, since one strong argument on "what is life" defines it as process, rather than a sudden jump into life. Although personally I do use birth as a line since I think its a natural one. But its a tricky potential life>in the process of becoming life>full human life issue.

But thats a philosophical debate and is personal and doesn't change the political and practical stance one iota. Thats what you have to undestand. We can all have our individual ideas and notions, but the personal opinion doesn't confer the right to decide for others. Its arrogant posturing that leads people to base laws and moral judgements on their own personal philosophy.

It's all an empty argument, a distraction from the point. I get the feeling like you're trying to catch me (and others) out, to trip us up and shout AHA! much like larry did earlier. And you can't. Because no personal belief or opinion changes my point at all.

That is one of the cases for not taking the pregnancy to term Posie but as the termination would be as traumatic as delivery of a live baby then I think such a 12 year old could be helped and supported and her baby could go for adoption.