to have been shocked by US anti-abortion feature on Newsnight

[wimblehorse]

This was a few days ago but haven't had chance to post sooner.

The feature was about how far to the right the republican presidential candidates have been pushing on the abortion debate and showed a group in Ohio who are lobbying for abortion law there to be (further) restricted so that once a fetal heartbeat has been detected through compulsory vaginal probe ultra-sound - which can be after 5-6 weeks - then a termination cannot be carried out.

A huge number of women would not even know they were pregnant at 5-6 weeks, and even those who found out straight away it doesn't give much time to be able to arrange a termination, especially as so many clinics/hospitals have been forced to close.

Already in that state, women seeking terminations are forced to have vaginal ultrasound probes and hear/see the heartbeat before having a termination.

The group who were lobbying claimed that detection of the heartbeat was a fundamental sign of life and therefore terminating a pregnancy after this had been detected was "wrong". However it's just a sign of current medical technology. There are many people alive today who have had periods of no detectable heartbeat and have been resuscitated - brain death is what is considered the fundamental sign of life and they had no medical link between detection of ultra-sound heartbeat to development of brain function - awareness/pain etc - in a fetus.

It's an arbitrary measure that is trying to make it almost impossible to seek a safe, legal termination and I really hope that it doesn't make further headway.

Rant over.

WIBU to have been shocked?

I can see exactly where sgb is coming from: if you want to run campaings or sign petitions to reduce abortion rate you should be advocating better education, good free healthcare and ensuring families have sufficient money to bring up children (through a good welfare system for example). This is what will reduce abortion rates, not making it more complex and embarassing to have a legal abortion.

Incedently, I am more strongly pro choice now I have been pregnant and felt the effects on my body. For a wanted child they are sacrifices I am happy to make, but it isn't something you should force a woman to go through.

I personsaly could not have a abortion but i will defend a womans right to choose.Would people rather these unwanted children be at risk of child neglect or abuse.I'm not saying that everyone will abuse thier kids if forced but come on doesnt anyone think about that.

Romania should be held up to all as to what happens when women are forced by the state to give birth, but the support to raise those children properly is not there.

The US anti-abortionist lobby never include proper provision for raising the children they insist be born. Many children of the wrong ethnicity or with disabilities, (including crack babies & those with FSA) stand NO chance of ever being adopted into loving homes.

The same loony fundamentalist group that wish to forbid abortion also resent funding contraception, healthcare & education for these children from their own pockets. They also revel in the villification and social ostracisation of lone parents and unmarried mothers. They arent brilliant at supporting other more indirect things that might help mitigate the potential situation for the child such as jail time for the father if he doesnt pay appropriate child support etc either.

I personally could never have an abortion, but then I'm lucky enough to have never been the 12 year old incest or gang rape victim. I have never been told my life would forfeit if I continued a pregnancy, leaving existing children orphaned. I havent been faced with continuing the pregnancy for a disabled child for whom I knew I didnt have the resources emotionally and financially to cope with ($$$$$ for necessary healthcare is a bigger factor in a US Mums choices before birthing a child needing lots of ongoing expensive medical care than here).

"There but for the grace of God go I"

Abortion & fertility rights and reasons are complex raise issues that cant be simplified to a simple good/evil soundbite

Great post, bochead.

I saw the Newsnight piece and found it shocking. The US far right anti-abortion lobby are worrying in the extreme - not least because their influence is only a stone's throw from some of our MPs over here.

Remember the Nadine Dorries Health Bill Amendment last year? Or her efforts in 2008 to reduce the legal limit for abortion to 20wks? She was heavily influenced (possibly even funded) by US far-right christian anti-abortion lobbyists. This woman worked closely with Dorries during her attempted amendments to abortion rights. They seek to chip, chip away at women's abortion rights, restricting it as much as possible, and eventually leading to a full ban. She has failed so far, but she'll keep on.

Maybe not every pro-life individual, or pro-life poster on MN, is anti-women, but when these far-right christian lobbyists are involved, you can bet that misogyny and a contempt for women having autonomy over their own bodies is at the forefront of the campaign. Otherwise they wouldn't also be objecting to free contraception, maternity rights etc. How can anyone who claims to care about anyone harrass women and doctors outside abortion clinics?

I'm very very grateful to be in the UK.

funny all these anti-abortionists think foetuses are human, but women aren't.

SGB-'You're not actually interested in 'life' at all, you're just a foetus-worshipper, because foetuses can't answer back,'
EXACTLY they they are not able to speak up for themselves, so who advocates for these very vulnerable human lives?
Of couse I have empathy for mothers in heart rending situations, but unless her life is at risk, I don't believe anything justifies ending a human life.

All right, oopsi so where do you stand on the kind of laws being implemented in the US where women who miscarry have to prove that they didn't set out to intentionally rid themselves of their baby?

Do you support a woman's right to user the morning after pill in case of contraceptive failure, or are you one of those who considers a women 'pre-pregnant' because she will have a fertile time at some point in her cycle?

How do you feel about women being forced to carry dead foetuses to term?

Do you have any empathy at all?

sgb you rock.

Oopsi - you would rather a 12 year old rape victim, or a 35 year old DV survivor, or a woman who's had her drink spiked and doesn't remember, or the woman who God forbid enjoys sex and gets caught out - you would rather they carried and gave birth to an unwanted baby? 9 months of trauma upon trauma, with no positive outcome for the woman themselves? Really?

Pointy-of course i don't agree with any of those things. Why would I? They are completely different.
I could ask you if you have any empathy at all, to think it's Ok to take a human life willy nilly because it cannot speak up for itself?

Horribleday-They are very difficult circumstances , but to me at least a foetus or even an embryo is a human being.therefore I ask you if a 12 yo rape victim gave birth to a premature baby (say fopr example she didn't know she was pregnant- It happens) It would be ok to kill it ?
Should a woman be allowed to kill existing children she has had with an abusive ex? I truly am shocked that women and mothers can kill a foetus their own living flesh and blood .

oopsi: if the 12 yo rape victim didn't know she was pregnant until she gave birth, then that is not a problem. I would fully support her right to walk away from that baby and as you seem to think that there is a large demand for babies for adoption, even those who are likely to have problems, surely the baby would have no problem getting a successful adoption placement?

Once bonding/a relationship has been established with a child then obviously this would be shocking, but a traumatised child (which young teenagers are) who did not know, then sure I would think that the state should step in and arrange suitable upbringing for that baby if it is established that the mother does not wish to do so.

If she hasn't given birth it is different because at that stage the girl/woman cannot choose to not be pregnant without an abortion and pregnancy can and does cause harm to women. This is both social and economic harm, and far more importantly harm to physical and mental health. In no other sphere of life are people required to continue damaging their own health for the benefit of another. Yes women do choose to do so, but they should not be forced to do so.

oopsi said

"Incedently, I am more strongly pro choice now I have been pregnant and felt the effects on my body. For a wanted child they are sacrifices I am happy to make, but it isn't something you should force a woman to go through."

Same here.

My pregnancy had such wonderful effects on my body that I spent 50% of the pregnancy in hospital. That's a huge deal to put someone through, I wanted my baby and yet I was considering abortion at one point just to make the agony stop, I can't begin to imagine being forced to go through with a pregnancy like mine when you didn't want the baby!

many loving couples waiting to adopt? There are about 1,3 million abortions performed in the US each year. There are about 200 000 women or couples currently taking steps to adopt and about 2 million women (including in couples) ages 15 to 44 have ever sought to adopt. So if most of them are allowed to adopt (which is of course not likely) then that takes care of one year of abortions, what about the next?

I agree with the above posters, I'm much more strongly pro-choice now that I have had a family. It's not as simple as "just" giving the baby up for adoption. There are health risks and other emotional aspects for the mother to be taken account for. Adoption is still an option for those women that want it - but society shouldn't make a woman an incubator against her will.

My oldest is the product of rape. It was very difficult but it was my choice not to abort. It still hurts and I do have my lovely daughter. My lovely daughter who is likely to find out why she has a step dad and why I am terrified of her biological Dad. Does anyone honestly think that won't have an adverse effect on her?

I later miscarried 3 very much wanted babies with DH. Each time I lay awake for nights on end wondering what I had done wrong. The answer was nothing at all, it was one of those things. If I had had to go over these thoughts in order to defend myself against the death penalty I have doubts that I would have lived long enough to have a chance to be found innocent. How would this have been good for my existing child?

Can someone please tell me how banning operations to remove a foetus that has died naturally or is growing ectopically (and will definitely die) thereby putting the mother at high risk of death is pro-life? Also how can endangering a mother's life for the sake of a DEAD body work with the hippocratic oath? In these circumstances you cannot murder the foetus, it is tragically already dead. You cannot kill what is already dead.

AmyFF you took a brave decision. Sorry for your losses and wish you all the best with your eldest dd.

oopsi thank you for responses, you are one of the few posters posting a differen viewpoint. Am pleased you share some of my views on forcing women to continue stillborn pregnancies or prove innocence in miscarriage. You suggest that posters would share your pov if they substitute newborn child for fetus. That is the whole basis behind our differing viewpoints, substituting that word, entirely changes the argument!
A pregnant woman is the only person/"incubator" (for want of a better word) that can support a fetus to live under 24 weeks. Beyond 24 weeks or once born, there are other medical ways to support the child, or adoption.

Have you seen Hazle's stats on numbers looking to adopt? What would you suggest happen to those who aren't adopted?

oopsi Also interested whether you agree with use of the pill or other contraceptive methods which reduce chance of a fertilised egg implanting within a few days of conception? Or do they too destroy a "human life"?
How about male masturbation which is throwing away a potential human life - given the right circumstances and 3 weeks time and the Ohio proposals would be banning a termination...

OOpsi you don't have empathy, you prioritise a dependent group of cells over the life and choices of a sentient girl or woman. There are appalling histories of forced pregnancy historically and globally and they are tragic and thought provoking. Your stance, if adopted in law, would be abusive to many women. Happily it will never prevail in our, or most other developed countries.

Comparing terminations, and almost all are done in the first trimester, with the live baby born prematurely is ridiculous. The live baby is not being carried by its mother. You can't substitute 'new born baby' for foetus... it only shows your refusal to engage with the real issue, that the foetus is a developing dependent.

I understand ambivalence about where to judge life starts, I understand individual reluctance to have an abortion but I can only see simplistic moralising in protecting non viable, non sentient cells at the expense of women.

Happiness I am sorry for your losses, am sorry that you had to meet with the pro life groups first too. Can't have helped much.

Having decided to choose to have my baby adopted they still sent me lots of leaflets and a video too in some kind of insurance tactic. They sent a woman to visit me, a married adult with lots of children who had no contact with adoption- I sent her away tartly because she was patronising and had no understanding or ability to pretend she did. I didn't find that they offered any practical support, no way to help me continue with studies, no support for my month in hospital, no support emotionally, no support practically. They didn't give any guidance for what the first few weeks post birth would be like, in a time before the internet I didn't know for example that my milk would come in explosively whilst I tried to register at a college. They didn't mention that my choice would define me in many people's eyes for as long as they knew me, that I would have to explain it to my children as they grew up, that you live your life with uncertainties and that even as a professional working over 5 hours away from my home town that I could meet my new boss whose secretary knew me as that girl who...

I think your understanding of adoption is as pertinent as your grasp of procedure for obtaining the MAP Oopsi.

wimplehorse- throwing away sperm is completely different.Fertilization hasn't taken place a new gebetically unique human being hasn't been created.I am not comfortable myself, with post-fertilisation contraception.

porthos- a newborn baby is a dependent group of cells isn't it?

"a newborn baby is a dependent group of cells isn't it?"

No, it's independent of it's mother.

"a newborn baby is a dependent group of cells isn't it?"

No, it's independent of it's mother.

^^ This. With bells on

*"a newborn baby is a dependent group of cells isn't it?"

No, it's independent of it's mother.*

Which is why you can give a newborn baby up for adoption which is what you are advocating oopsi. Presumably you are happy for women who would otherwise have had abortions to walk away from their babies as soon as they are born, as long as the baby is in a safe place so how you can't see the difference is startling.

A newborn is dependent on a person to look after it. A foetus is dependent on the mother alone.

I just hope that the Republican party goes so far to the right that nobody in their right mind would vote for them.

I don't think I could go through with an abortion.

However, I understand what drives many women to do it.

Personally, I am in favour of abortion being legal in certain circumstances and having counselling first. I do worry about it being sometimes considered as an alternative contraception method. Or that is done because it's not convenient to have that baby. :(