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?

I think I'd rather be a misanthrope than subjugated, larrygrylls.

"What I do with my body should be my choice alone, all of it."

But, when it comes to abortion, it is not you doing something with your body, it is someone else doing something to it. Unless you are going to do a home abortion yourself, of course. And that brings other factors to bear. It is similar to assisted dying. You would not want assisted dying on demand, would you, even for healthy teenage females? Or is bodily autonomy differently defined in that instance?

misanthrope? No, because a foetus is not a person.

If you want to stop terminations for gender selection, you don't need abortion laws, you need a cultural shift that takes away the reasons for gender selection.

larrygrylls but what is classed as medical reasons that warrants termination up to birth?
surely unless the mother is so at risk the birth might kill her, what other reason would there ever be?

Peppy,

I cannot see how you can say that a viable foetus inside a woman's body is not a person and, as soon as it comes out, it suddenly becomes one. How does that work logically or morally?

aborting an 8.5 month old foetus is wrong

absolutely, anything past 15 weeks is wrong, and probably before that, barring serious disabilities, and no the woman shouldnt have the ultimate right, disregarding the rights of everyone else.

But when you think of poor Baby P and his siblings and the many others suffering like him, I really dont know what the answer would be

and so yes, i guess you will never get a consensus of opinion because there are so many variables. I just wish compulsory sterilisation of some women was an option.

I cannot see how you can say that a viable foetus inside a woman's body is not a person

i guess people who lose babies in pregnancy would agree with that

larry I am deciding what happens to my body, don't be so pedantic. No medic is forced to carry out an abortion if they don't wish to.

I lost a baby in pregnancy, feedme. I am pro-choice nonetheless.

Graham - what about organ donation while living? Acceptable use of your own body whatever the outcome?

Would any of the anti-abortionists on this thread care to comment on my previous post (at 15.10 above)? I would be really interested in hearing their views. Bumbley perhaps?

For those who think pro-life means that people think a woman doesn't have rights - no, it just means that people think the foetus also has rights as a human life.

In the UK and with informed choice and without coercion, yes, chandellina, if that's what a person wants to do, why should they not? My answer would be different if we were talking of organ donation while living in a country where extreme poverty might be the driving factor, for obvious reasons.

Same with prostitution? There is poverty and desperation everywhere.

larry you seem to be arguing that if people want abortions they should do them at home with a coat-hanger like in the good old days.

That's not what you are arguing, is it?

Don't feed me feed me now the prolife trolls?

There are people here who are seriously arguing that if abortion was allowed to term, there would be women taking up the option of very late terminations for no good reason?

These are the words of people who don't like women. Really they are.

feedme I dont understand what the connection with Baby P is.
Do you think he was the product of an unwanted pregnancy and thats why he was so badly abused?
Or that the sort of women who have abortions are the ones that do terrible things to children if they dont get to terminate?

What does it mean?

But the only thing that is going to happen to a fetus if it is aborted, is that it will die.
It will die ignorant of the suffering that it could have gone through if it's mother was forced to bring it into this world.
Whereas the women will be aware of the consequences of her actions, that she is ending something before it begins.
If she is forced to continue with the pregnancy she will suffer nine to ten months of sharing HER body with something that she does not want inside of her.
She will suffer the agony of childbirth for something she does not want to birth.
She will suffer either having to give her child up, with no certainty that the child will end up somewhere loving and nurturing or she will suffer having to raise that child, which will not be a good thing for either herself or the child.
It is no-ones choice to make but the women who is pregnant because no-one else, ultimatly, will have to suffer these things.

Bumbley For those who think pro-life means that people think a woman doesn't have rights - no, it just means that people think the foetus also has rights as a human life.
Why do the foetus' rights trump the woman's?

The moral arguments against prostitution and the effect it may or may not have upon a woman is vastly different to those concerning abortion. The two can't be compared. Bear in mind too, chandellina, that we are talking of women being forced by law to go through with pregnancy and childbirth if some on here had their way whilst it's illegal for a woman to be forced into prostitution although the act of prostitution itself is not, if I'm not mistaken. A civilised society cannot claim that it's not okay to force a woman to have sex but it is okay to force her to have a child.

No, they have not proven that foetuses can feel pain. They have proven they can react to stimuli which is not the same thing at all. The percentage of 3rd trimester abortions in this country is absolutely tiny and is not something I can imagine anyone would want to go through unless they had very good reasons.

Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted foetus to term against her wishes is appalling and I find it absolutely sickening that some women would rather that other women suffer to save an unborn foetus.

Frida, I think you are making a lot of assumptions of how that woman would feel. There are some that would be proud to make another family happy, or might decide they do want the child.

Patti - so if it is against the woman's wishes to have a girl, she should be allowed to abort?

For those who think pro-life means that people think a woman doesn't have rights - no, it just means that people think the foetus also has rights as a human life.