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?

Most women who go to term with a pregnancy would be unwilling to give up the baby at birth, even if the pregnancy was very much unplanned and unwanted. They would bond with the baby. Add in societal pressure in which it is believed that most women have a "maternal instinct" and most women will be advised against giving away their babies unless they are sure beyond all doubt that they don't want the child. Few women will be that clear-headed about it as such a vulnerable time.

The result will be lots of children being brought up by women who started out with the best intentions but soon found themselves miserable, resentful and angry but with too much attachment to their child to give up him or her for adoption. What won't happen is a mythical utopia where there are suddenly lots of newborn babies available for all those childless couples. It takes months (sometimes years) to process a child through to placement.

This is very much a women's rights issue, despite the fact that it takes two to make a baby. The sad truth is that in unplanned pregnancies where the parents aren't in a committed relationship, the father more-often-than-not fails to live up to expectations to provide, either financially or emotionally. And even in a committed relationship, the odds are high that an unwanted pregnancy will result in relationship breakdown.

Whatever route a woman finds herself ending up as a single parent, the truth is that most receive no maintenance and are twice as likely to end up in poverty as any other sector of society. Even when the father pays maintenance and fulfils a valuable role emotionally/practically, the overwhelming amount of responsibility still rests on the mother's shoulders. There is a vast difference between paying maintenance/having your child every other weekend and having your child's needs completely dominate your own life in the way that is the reality for most single parents.

Even if the couple stay together, it will affect the woman's mental health to a greater degree than the father's, since the odds are again overwhelming that it will the mother who is primary carer.

Unless we are prepared to do something about social norms of motherhood and fatherhood, and provide greater financial security for parents, banning abortion affects women completely out of all proportion to men. Therefore it is a woman's rights issue. I don't like abortion. It makes me uncomfortable but I will passionately defend a woman's right to have one. For those passionately pro-life, I say more campaigns should be focussed on improving the position of women in general and mothers in particular. Deal with the womens issues of low status, poverty, dependency on men and/or state, lack of childcare, lack of affordable housing, etc and the unplanned pregnancy might not be so unwanted.

Really, I know I said I wouldn't wade in, but like I said in my post above, I think that this is descending into the illogical! (obvously, it is very emotive)

There is one question: when does life begin?

It has no bearing whether the woman would be a good mother or even whether the foetus feels pain or not.

If life has already begun at the time of abortion, then the mother's life cannot automatically take precedence over the foetus' - they have equal sancity of life.

if life has not begun at the time of abortion, then the mother's rights are the only rights to consider, or certainly the most important.

I personally don't know when life begins.

12? Been raped? Not known about morning after pill / felt able to tell anyone / known what is going on / been released by your assailants in time to get it?

SUCK IT UP B*H your problem.

Oh, so if, God forbid, raped woman can't access MAP (for example because she is too distraught or goes into shock or whatever) , she should be further punished by having to carry and give birth to her rapist's child?

I just love how the anti-choice brigade has so much compassion for foetuses, yet none for their fellow human beings

Wow. Thats an awful lot of unwanted babies you are advocating be born, Ktchenroll. Are you going to help feed and care for them or does your moral responsiblity extend only to them being born and then forgotten about?

Right. But it's not callous to kill a foetus that can feel pain?

So a rape victim who doesn't know about the morning after pill, should not only be forced to carry a child but should also know that any pain she suffers is her own fault.

Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm nice.

• sanctity, sorry!

But also agree, obviously, that a woman and man cannnot be compared in terms of the effect of a pregnancy. But again, I don't think that is the point.

Some really appalling women hating posts on here.

EVERY CHILD SHOULD BE A WANTED CHILD.
FREE ABORTION ON DEMAND FOR ALL.

What a draconian point of view. Sex is enjoyable too you know, it's not only for procreation.

Back to the original point, if people are aborting due to gender and those reasons are medical or based on disability, you are allowed to abort to term. They have been doing this for years though haven't they? It's not a recent thing. My friend was tested through amino due to hemophilia

I love the way that the sheer naked hatred of women and girls doesn't take too long to peep through

What gestation can a foetus feel pain then? And what has that got to do with anything anyway?

Deal with the womens issues of low status, poverty, dependency on men and/or state, lack of childcare, lack of affordable housing, etc and the unplanned pregnancy might not be so unwanted.

Yes. And deal with workplace prejudices against fertile women of a certain age! Deal with the fact I am less likely to be hired than my males counterpart.

sorry I cross posted with all the rape references, it wasn't inr eply to that

I think it's ok for foetuses conceived out of rape to be aborted by using the morning after pill. It's widely available, it shudo be used in every case of rape. If a woman chooses not to use it she forfeits her right to choice IMO.

WTF???

1. the MAP does not abort a foetus, it's purpose is to prevent pregnancy and is only effective up to 120 hours after intercourse.

2. how many women who have been raped are actually in the right frame of mind to go and get this pill within the required time frame? And if they if
   'failed' they should go through with the pregnancy?

How is it hatred of women? That's ridiculous, especially when you consider that I am actually a woman?

I just think people should take responsibility for the choices they make and shouldn't have the right to end someone else's life. It's really not that outrageous.

legallyblond: "There is one question: when does life begin?"

Actually, I don't think that is the only question. The real question is this: does the foetus's right to life outweigh the right of the woman not to carry a baby she doesn't want?

For some people, the right of the foetus always outweighs the right of the woman. For others, the right of the woman always outweighs the right of the foetus. For most of the rest of us, the balance changes depending on circumstance, in particular how far pregnant the woman is. In adjudicating on the competing rights, one thing you would take into account is whether the foetus is alive and whether it is sentient. But you could argue (some people do) that a woman has no moral obligation at all to act as an incubator for a baby she doesn't want - that it is her body, and up to her what she does with it.

No, it is not, because the well-being of a woman takes precedence over the rights of a foetus.

If your daughter was raped at 12, would you really make her carry the pregnancy and give birth, KitchenRoll? Really?

Clearly, I'm using emotive example here, I think women of all ages and for all sorts of reasons should be able to decide whether to go through 9 months of pregnancy and birth (with all the risks involved).

Why is a foetus concieved unwillingly any less morally entitled to live? I've never got that. All this sanctity of life, foetus is a life stuff, why are some of them allowed to be got rid of and not others? Its so hypocritical, and nonsensical.

Either you believe a foetus has an inherent right to life or you don't. And clearly you don't.

But kitchenroll - while that might be a nice idea in theory, if you banned abortion do you really think women would suddenly decide that they would only have sex if they were prepared to take responsiblity for a child? Of course not. There would still be unwanted pregnancies arising from all manner of circumstances. As there were when abortion was illegal previously. So history would repeat itself and the result is that women are forced to have unsafe illegal abortions. I'm not saying there is an easy solution and this is an issue I struggle with on a personal level as many others do. But I think we have to be realistic. People always have done and always will have sex. Unwanted pregnancies will occur. The question is really whether we, as a society, want terminations carried out in a manner that is as safe for women as possible or not?

Tbh, I wouldn't object to rape victims being given abortions within a couple of weeks. But ideally they should all be given the MAP and it is fairly reliable if taken correctly so it would work in most cases.

I just think people should take responsibility for the choices they make and shouldn't have the right to end someone else's life. It's really not that outrageous.

That's what it is required at the end of the day ' responsibility'. Of course there are circumstances as mentioned above, rape, failed contraception etc however there are a percentage of individuals out there who if they were more responsible wouldn't fine themselves in the situation where abortion is required.

Abortion is taking responsibility.

exactly peppy

Yes 'peppy' in the right circumstances but again, there are those who could have avoided the situation. A smaller percentage perhaps but a percentage all the same.