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?

bumbley, no double standards, they are all stupid examples, because as I said it makes no difference what anyones reasons are.

If you are going to accuse me of something, a cursory look over the post you are referring to is advised.

You don't need any arguments or examples to be properly pro-choice. How about you choose what happens with your body, and I choose what happens with mine, and we all keep out noses out of everyone elses uterus?

What woolyideas said. Put much better than my efforts up thread.

Lynnicebutdim have you had a genetic problem with your child

To enlighten you I have, sorry to say I did not fit into your 20 week bracket.

My pre planned much wanted pregnancy was well at my 12 weeks scan I waited to have a CVS due to bloods at 14 weeks they tried 5 times but it could not be done safely.

I had to wait to have an amino at 19 weeks. I had a FSH all clear, they took my blood which needed to be looked at more carefully along with my partner I did not get the results until 22 weeks.

It was a very serious no hope fatal disease inherited from my partner he did not know he was a affected by these issues. You have to talk to Consultants and Genetic Counsellors to get in insight into a disease you have no knowledge of.

please don`t assume everyone fits into your criteria

I am pro-choice. I have strong views on lots of things but within the realms of abortion I have to put some of them aside because the issue is so important.

However aborting due to gender is not just an pro-choice/life issue IMO.

It is far more about why women feel they should terminate the pregnancy based on the sex of the child. I am guessing but I would think it is more likely the terminations are on females more than males.

Surely this is a feminist issue and a complex one because those of us who believe in a woman's right to have control over their body is absolute are now coming up against a situation where a female is destroying another female because they are 'inferior' (sorry long sentence!).

I could be wrong but I am not thinking that these terminations are done on pregnancies because Mrs Iwantaperfectlife has decided that DC3 simply has to be a girl.

Much more likely to be about cultural selection. Something that I see through work and where I live. Without a shadow of a doubt the birth of a girl is seen as a disappointment. I cant tell you how many times I have been congratulated on my four boys. As if I have performed some miracle.

If the birth of a certain gender was truly causing genuine mental distress that is one issue but if females are being terminated because they are deemed a waste of time how is that 'pro-choice'?

I am very interested in what feminists feel about this issue. Genuinely, because it has been on my mind since I saw this story.

BUT (big but) I am also somewhat cynical and am wondering if this story is yet another plant by this government to manipulate us into agreeing to abortion reforms.

They have been doing it for years re disability and welfare...

Oh dear, the forced birthers are out in force today aren't they?

For those of you who say the limit should be lowered to 10-12 weeks I ask to consider the young girl who doesn't realise she's pregnant. Or hopes she isn't. Or does not have easy access to a GP on her own. Or the woman whose GP is so vehemently anti abortion that they refuse to refer them based on the GP's religious belief. And of those women whose GP's impose their will on the woman's reproductive rights, what of those who live rurally and cannot easily access another GP, or cannot afford to go private?

I'm always a bit at those who argue that the foetus has human rights while blithely ignoring the fact that so does the woman.

As far as I can see the issues aare...Do you force women to endure pregnancy and birth against their will, or do you recognise that human beings have autonomy over their own bodies?

"It's not OK to do it to a child that has been born because it has thoughts and feelings. It all depends on when you think life begins, my personal belief is that it is until the baby has been born it is not 'alive'

My personal belief it that it's 'alive' from the moment of conception. How can one say a baby does not have thoughts and feelings in the womb."

And therein lies the stupid polarisation of this debate.

I feel sickened by the idea that any woman would choose to abort an 8.5 month old baby. And, I use the word "baby" advisedly. Anyone who believes that a foetus, at that stage is not a baby, is trying to subhumanise a human life, in the same way that the Nazis felt about the Jews. And who would carry out these super late abortions? Are you asking a doctor to inject potassium chloride into the heart of a baby who, if allowed to be born, could already live? Or would we have special uber feminist volunteers who would depress 3 remote plungers, as per lethal injections in the U.S?

On the other hand, I also don't get that a small bundle of cells is a human being yet. It may potentially be one but is not yet, cannot think, and has no chance of an independent life outside the mother. And nature carries out a lot of abortions pre 12 weeks.

Surely the rational stance is to set a limit and make it on demand ahead of that limit? Personally, I would bring it down a fair bit but make sure there was zero waiting time for it. It has to be a trade off between the rights of the woman and the rights of the embryo/foetus/baby.

larry I think if you looked at the reasons behind abortions at 8.5 months, you wouldn't find that women were undergoing that light heartedly or for a laugh. I think you would find some very harrowing and tragic situations.

Catgirl,

If there are exceptions, then make them. But if the baby is healthy at that stage, regardless of circumstances, it deserves a chance to be born alive. If the woman cannot emotionally carry it any longer, then get it out and put it up for adoption...but alive.

"Forced birther" is an emotive expression but if you have a foetus inside you at 8.5 months, you are going to give birth, one way or the other. The only question is whether it is going to be a live birth or a still birth.

I'm always a bit hmm at those who argue that the foetus has human rights while blithely ignoring the fact that so does the woman.

Exactly. I really don't understand the argument against abortion in terms of the foetus feeling pain/having thoughts/feelings etc, except if it's a rape case. Why do all the arguments for foetal pain/feelings/whether they're a person or not yet got out of the window in this instance? Surely if you're a firm believer that foeuses feel, think and can feel pain then you're against abortion under ANY circumstances.

Realistically, how many abortions at c.8 months (where there is no risk to the mother's life) are likely to be sought? That's a bit of a red herring. It's highly likely that the only time that would happen would be when there was something else seriously wrong, such as serious MH issues or forced pregnancy and in those cases there would be all the more reason to offer abortion.

I knew I couldn't post about abortion without eliciting the usual, fundamental debates, but like MrsDevere I am interested in the line being drawn around gender selection.

And it sounds like a lot of pro choicers don't think it should be illegal.

Exactly Graham. I just dont think many (any?) women get to 8.5 months and then think "actually I've just changed my mind". There must be very serious issues for a termination at that point, either with the mother or with the foetus and I expect they are very rare.

some severe/profound genetic illness's/disabilities are not detected until very very late in the pregnancy, that's why there is no upper limit

So the answer is to refuse all sexing scans?

There is an interesting debate on that which has already been had elsewhere chandellina.

What is the point in trying to have a reasonable debate with people who think that the only "abortion" allowed should be the morning after pill, and then only in cases of rape.

Catgirl and Graham,

That is a bizarre argument. How many people get up one morning and decide "I want to kill my 1 year old". Hmmm, not many I don't think. Oh, let's allow infanticide then.

People who honestly believe that women will decide to terminate 8.5 month pregnancies on a women, are people who do not like women IMO.

chand - I just don't see how you would police what a womans real reason for wanting a termination was. Even if it became policy not to tell women the sex I am sure people would set up "black market" sex scanning etc.

I agree with what MrsD said about it being a wider issue than an abortion one.

I think the story is unrepresentative and is being used as another attack on current legislation. there is for me a huge feminist issue around this point and I would imagine a pretty clear correlation between sex selected abortions and the lesser social status of women in those communities.

Countries with more equal societies are less likely to have women, husbands, families who are do not want daughters for cultural or economic reasons.

reading the terrifying posts from people content to compel women and girls to continue unwanted pregnancies makes me wonder whether they empathise with a foetus because it lacks so thoroughly the development and complexity of its host. the determination to refuse to value female self determination comes from the same vales that sees female sex selected abortion.

On a WHIM that should be.

Saying the idea of a young teen being raped and needing a termination is really rare
But that females would want really late term abortions for no good reason pretty frequently

The ideas of people who think women are cold selfish liars.

chandellina, to answer you, I believe in a woman's right to choose, which is imho paramount. In my own view gender selection should be irrelevant as no woman should have to give a reason for wanting an abortion any more than they should have to give a reason for wanting their ears pierced, having a tattoo, eating a vegan diet, taking Vitamin C or having their hair cut. What I do with my body should be my choice alone, all of it.

"I feel sickened by the idea that any woman would choose to abort an 8.5 month old baby" considering that so few babies are aborted at that stage it seems most likely that any 'choice' to abort would be due to serious medial reasons and not a choice made lightly.

Sardine,

No one mentioned a whim. For whatever reason other than the health of the mother or child, aborting an 8.5 month old foetus is wrong.

If you cannot see that, you must be a misanthrope.

Why do you like to generalise so much about women? Why do they either have to be wonderful kind people or cold selfish liars? Do you not think of women as individuals? And could some of those individuals not be cold selfish liars? Not many, maybe very very few, but enough to make a sensible law to protect unborn babies (and, if you read my post above, I am not anti abortion on demand up to a certain point of pregnancy).

Yuleing,

Abortions for medical reasons are currently legal up until birth and I wholly support that.

I think in a world where females were as valued as males, the number of aborted female and male foetuses would even out and it would be no more of an issue than any other reason for terminating. We don't live in that world though. I think the best thing to do would be to refuse all sexing scans (except in cases where there is a sound medical reason for sex selection).

It probably would result in some 'back street' sexing scans but I think that is preferable to the back street abortions that would happen if further limitations were placed on women's rights over their own bodies.