To think that just because I'm pro-life doesn't mean I hate feminism?

[TinkerSailerSoldierSpy]

Friend and I were having a discussion, I'm 18 weeks pregnant, and it was a bit of an inconvenient surprise, considering I've started a new job just 2 months ago.I mentioned that it wasn't going to look good, me taking maternity leave after not even being there for a year, and she suggested perhaps considering there was no dad on the scene and my new job, I should terminate. I felt a bit uncomfortable but told her that I could never do that as I'm pro life and view it as killing a child. She then proceeded to stare at me like I had an extra head and ask me why in a shocked voice. I explained my reasons and views and we got into an arguement about it, the usual stuff, what about in cases of rape and if the woman's not financially able to support the child, to which I countered but is it right for a woman to get an abortion just because she wants to continue a party lifestyle? And she stormed out the house shouting that I was misogynistic and women have the right to their own bodies. Let me be clear, I certainly would never stop anyone from making their decision about an abortion, I just can't seem to get over the idea of it, it repulses me. But I wouldn't judge a woman who got one. I understand the other viewpoint but I can't agree with it myself, and in all other respects I would say i was very liberal about womans rights. When I mentioned it to other friend she said it was my views but they were quite outdated and misogynistic. Are they? I need advice, should I apologize to friend A?

Eccentrica, I don't know how I can make my point any clearer to you. Autonomy has to be absolute or it is not in fact autonomy. You can't have abortion legal based on a woman's autonomy over her body if that autonomy comes to a screeching end at 24 weeks. That is not autonomy. It is a limited freedom over what happens to one's body.

We have many forms of autonomy in our everyday life and pretty much all of them are restricted where they intersect with other people's autonomy.
Are you saying here that the foetus is a person? What happens at 24 weeks to make a foetus a person (person in the legal sense) where it has a right to impinge on another's putative rights?

In other words, what you don't seem to understand in the context of abortion law is that the foetus does not have legal personhood the same way that adults do when they interact with one another in the various ways you describe. The limits to autonomy you have used are examples of the autonomy of individuals limited in order to preserve the rights of other legal persons.

Neunundneun -- in the X Case in Ireland the 14 year old victim of serial rape by a friend's father was accused of making up the story of molestation. Of course most people believed her, but there is a tendency among the seriously deluded to deny rape, to make up any sort of completely far fetched scenario and to find it more believable than the idea that women and children are preyed upon by rapists. 'Legitimate rape'?

mathanxiety "In other words, what you don't seem to understand in the context of abortion law is that the foetus does not have legal personhood the same way that adults do when they interact with one another in the various ways you describe. The limits to autonomy you have used are examples of the autonomy of individuals limited in order to preserve the rights of other legal persons."

Er, and the bit about the rights of nonhuman animals? Would you like to respond to that, given that I wrote an entire paragraph about how our rights and autonomy are restricted not only in relation to other human beings? How does that fit with you saying I "don't seem to understand" what is an achingly obvious point?

I'll just repeat it

"Also, it's not only human beings who have rights. We also recognise in law that nonhuman animals have rights to do with being free of unnecessary pain and suffering, so the fact that a foetus is not yet a full human being doesn't in and of itself mean it has no rights."

No, very unlikely she would use a rape exemption to abort at 30w, but if abortion were only available as TFMR or rape exemption there would be a lot of false rape reports in the 4-10w pg group - ie where 90% or more of abortions take place nowadays. Tens if not thousands of women have abortions each year in Britain: could we even hypothetically cope with 1000 additional rape reports a year?

Eglantine "The grey area is about 20 weeks long. Where do you suggest?"

I'm not an expert but I would be more or less happy to go along with the law as it currently stands. The fact is that you can have an abortion later than that if there's a medical reason, e.g. anencephaly and other similar cases.

i have heard before the argument that "a woman should be able to end her pregnancy at any stage but not kill the foetus". I call it "the Orr line" after Deborah Orr made a big thing of it in The Independent (and subsequently on Twitter). To be honest I think it's sophistry. What on earth would that mean in reality?

Pregnancy is a uniquely weird event where what is definitely one person at the beginning has become two by the end. I know that when i was 8 months pregnant with my daughter I was not in any simple sense "one person". Boundary cases, where the lines between categories are blurred, are always incredibly hard to deal with ethically and legally. But that doesn't mean we should just give up and insist that something which is all shades of grey is really just black or white.

In other words, what you don't seem to understand in the context of abortion law is that the foetus does not have legal personhood the same way that adults do when they interact with one another in the various ways you describe.

Sadly that is not true under Irish constitutional law any more the foetus has an equal right to life as its mother. In the case of the X case you mentioned the young girl in question threatened suicide and because then both the mother and the babies lives were at stake the Irish supreme (constitutional) court ruled that she needed to be allowed to terminate pregnancy because there was a real and sustantial risk to her life. The case had nothing to do with her being raped in that sense horrific as that is.

I guess in Ireland though we generally (obviously not everyone but it seems like the majority) have got a cultural regard for the life of the unborn baby based probably on a Catholic history but even now with the 'down with that sort of thing' attitude I have towards anything remotely Catholic I still carry that value and I know many, many of my similarily no longer Catholic friends are the same. I think though thankfully most people here realise abortion is not remotely a black and white issue.

The Philadelphia case shows that women do seek late abortions for non-medical reasons. And it's definitely not difficult to get an early abortion in Philly.

If a human foetus is not devoid of rights how do we decide the point where it has rights and what exactly those rights are, and how does that square with the right to privacy or autonomy (that is necessarily absolute by its nature) of the mother? Is it logical to say that up to the 24 week mark a human foetus is legally a non-person but at midnight on the day when the 24 week mark is reached then it has rights? What criteria are used to determine when the foetus's right comes into play? Is it potential viability or does the possibility of causing pain come into play? And again, what about the right to bodily autonomy of the mother?

Animals do not have rights per se. They are considered property or wild (or in some cases vermin). People have responsibilities both to animals and to other people and even to the environment when it comes to managing the animals (such as dogs kept as pets, animals kept for breeding or food purposes on farms, and the bodies of farm animals once slaughtered). Legislation regarding treatment of animals only focuses on the responsibilities of humans because people are the only species who have the capacity to understand duty. If there is some moral imperative to avoid causing pain to animals can we decide not to cause pain to a human child or to someone who is elderly or suffering from a chronic and incurable disease?

I am having a hard time working out whether you find a woman's right to abort or whether you find a foetus's right to not be aborted more compelling, and if you support either one then what foundation do you base your support on. The fact is that you can have an abortion right now if you want an abortion, right up to the time of natural birth. You do not have to 'prove' any medical reason either on your own part or on the part of the foetus in order to have an abortion at any point in pregnancy up to natural birth. What you need is two doctors who form the opinion in good faith that abortion is necessary in order to preserve your physical or mental health. The fact that the procedure is rarely chosen after the 24 week point does not alter the fact that the law allows it. The situation is far more black and white than you claim it is.

Neun yes, iirc the first court that heard her case dismissed the possibility of her suicide as a factor and so she remained not permitted to travel to England to have an abortion. The appeal court permitted her to travel, assessing that her threat of suicide warranted the permission. The rape didn't come into it, as you rightly point out.

It was certain groups in Ireland who disputed the rape and tried to cast doubt on the entire case, from asserting that the girl was not pregnant at all to asserting that the whole thing had been a set up, that this girl had been purposely impregnated in order to create a test case. I mention this because I asserted upthread that society still has tremendous difficulties with the subject of rape and I think this sort of baloney illustrates that well.

In UK law the foetus doesn't have personhood throughout the gestational period. In Ireland the foetus has a right to life at all stages of gestation. This is the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, voted for in a referendum -- 'The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.' No laws have yet clarified the practical details that arise in a case like that of Savita Halappanavar. Hence the current debate.

seeker - I completely agree about the simplistic views and think it is so sad that anybody hold them in today's society.

Grimbletart - I see that article and they briefly discussed it on The Wright Stuff this morning.

I'm very much in support of women's right to choose. Even if this woman was to regret it at a later date, being pregnant is dangerous to this woman's health right now.

1. It is causing her pain and anguish to be pregnant. It having a negative effect on her already unstable mental health.
2. She wishes to die if she remains pregnant and also threatens to kill the foetus if forced against her will to carry it and give birth to it.

This woman's health is what is paramount, nothing else. Even if at a later date she was to become more mentally stable and regret it. This is damaging her now and it's disgusting that her mother and doctors are risking her health sanity and life.

mathanxiety

"If a human foetus is not devoid of rights how do we decide the point where it has rights and what exactly those rights are, and how does that square with the right to privacy or autonomy (that is necessarily absolute by its nature) of the mother? Is it logical to say that up to the 24 week mark a human foetus is legally a non-person but at midnight on the day when the 24 week mark is reached then it has rights?"

Once again, the fact that drawing boundaries between categories means that you have 'instant crossover' between categories DOES NOT MEAN that therefore you shouldn't try to separate them at all.

You might as well say that it's nonsensical to have a legal age of consent because the idea that someone goes from 'child who can't consent' to 'adult who can consent' in one minute is patently ridiculous.

Or that a drink-drive limit is meaningless because 1mg of alcohol can't suddenly render you unfit to control a vehicle.

The fact that it is necessary to impose a seemingly arbitrary limit does not mean that it would therefore be more morally/ethically correct not to impose a limit at all.

And once again, no, autonomy is NOT "necessarily absolute by its nature". That is simply wrong. As I keep reiterating, there are many ways in which our autonomy over own bodies is limited and this is NOT restricted to ways in which it affects other people. See for example R v Brown 1990, known as the Spanner case, in which people were convicted and jailed for 'aiding and abetting their own assault' in sadomasochistic sex games.

"Animals do not have rights per se. They are considered property or wild (or in some cases vermin). People have responsibilities both to animals and to other people and even to the environment when it comes to managing the animals (such as dogs kept as pets, animals kept for breeding or food purposes on farms, and the bodies of farm animals once slaughtered). Legislation regarding treatment of animals only focuses on the responsibilities of humans because people are the only species who have the capacity to understand duty."

I refer you to The Animal Welfare Act 2006 which:

^makes owners and keepers responsible for ensuring that the welfare needs of their animals are met. These include the need:

for a suitable environment (place to live)
for a suitable diet
to exhibit normal behaviour patterns
to be housed with, or apart from, other animals (if applicable)
to be protected from pain, injury, suffering and disease^

www.gov.uk/animal-welfare

These are described as 'welfare needs' rather than 'rights' to avoid getting into arguments about the discourse of rights but it doesn't take away from the fact that they are recognised as sentient beings who should be protected from pain and suffering. It says absolutely nothing about "people being the only species who understand duty" - it is to do with the animals' needs and not to do with making questionable philosophical points about human morality.

"I am having a hard time working out whether you find a woman's right to abort or whether you find a foetus's right to not be aborted more compelling, and if you support either one then what foundation do you base your support on."

What I think you mean is "why are you not stating more clearly whether or not you are pro-choice or pro-life?". The fact is that I am pro-choice but that is not the primary argument I am trying to make here. I posted on this thread late, as I had no wish to get into yet another argument about the rights and wrongs of abortion, but I was driven to post by the irrational and illogical claims being made by people who were claiming that supporting abortion on request up to the point of birth is "the only logical position".

"You do not have to 'prove' any medical reason either on your own part or on the part of the foetus in order to have an abortion at any point in pregnancy up to natural birth. What you need is two doctors who form the opinion in good faith that abortion is necessary in order to preserve your physical or mental health. The fact that the procedure is rarely chosen after the 24 week point does not alter the fact that the law allows it."

Actually, no. Abortion after 24 weeks is only allowed if:

• if it is necessary to save the woman's life
• to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman
• if there is substantial risk that if the child were born, s/he would have physical or mental abnormalities and be seriously handicapped

www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Abortion/Pages/When-should-it-be-done.aspx

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_Act_1967

"It isn't sophistry, it's a practical solution. "

Removing babies at 25 weeks gestation from their mother's womb, and putting them on life support at huge expense, with no guarantee of any caregiver, and an overwhelming likelihood of permanent physical and mental disabilities, isn't what I would call practical or a solution.

Really, the root of the whole thing is that, throughout human history, men have been trying to take control of pregnancy and birth, because women can do it and men can't. If it were not for men's furious need to own the means of reproduction, abortion would be nobody's business but the pregnant woman's.

Of course there would be no abortion in a perfect world, because in a perfect world women would only conceive when they wanted to (and there would be no life-threatening foetal abnormalities, either). Every woman who has had an abortion has seen it as a solution to a problem she would rather not have had in the first place.

Eccentrica is ruling this debate, that's for sure.

I think the abortion to birth argument is as unscientific and heartless as the pro life, every sperm is sacred nonsense. One horrible dogma versus another.

It's to do with viability. A twenty four week fetus is viable. Therefore it should be protected. A ten week old fetus isn't. The brain, what makes us human is there, it's not just a collection of cells.

I understand the academic argument for abortion to birth but seriously can't understand anyone agreeing with it in real life.

I really wouldn't be associated with any group who hold such views.

On a practical level,you'd struggle to find medical professionals who would carry out a termination on a healthy fetus that late. Perhaps because they have worked with very premature babies with good outcomes.

In pro choice for any reason up to twenty four weeks. Not my business. But when the fetus is becomes viable then abortion is infanticide, medically if not legally.

Eccentra, where do you stand on the possibility of forcing a woman to endure a pregnancy and childbirth when she wants neither.

A drink driving limit doesn't cause me physical or mental harm.

Being forced to continue a pregnancy can. The state has control of my body. That scare the bejesus out of me.

blackcats I totally agree with everything in your post, and think you have stated it very clearly.

I think the "abortion to birth" argument undermines the good work done in the name of women's rights, feminism, whatever you want to call it. Because it is as you say "unscientific and heartless" and also, frankly, nuts.

Chunderella No, I'm not confusing "practical solution" with perfection. There IS no perfect answer to an unwanted pregnancy. However, that proposal is utterly impractical and not in any way a solution.

Apart from anything else, it is less cruel to kill a foetus or indeed an adult, even at the point when they can feel pain, that to condemn them to lifelong pain and suffering. I have read a brilliant and heartbreaking article by a woman who (involuntarily) gave birth early, shortly after the 24 week cutoff, and who wanted her babies to be allowed to die peacefully rather than what happened, that they were dragged into what would inevitably be a short, very restricted and painful life of suffering. Sadly she had no choice (will dig out link).

You say you find it "interesting" that I chose to discuss the prognosis for 25 weekers rather than 38 weekers. Well obviously, because it is one end of the spectrum and highlights why it's a crazy idea. But you don't need to go to one end to see what a cruel and ridiculous suggestion it is. My sister was born at 34 weeks and had a tough time - she was lucky to end up without long-term health problems. Dragging foetuses out of their mothers' wombs long before they are ready is obviously a stupid and wildly sadistic idea.

"The alternatives are either woman as chattel for a significant proportion of her pregnancy, or the killing of a foetus that could well live outside the womb. Nearly everyone objects to at least one of these. if you have a better idea, I'm all ears."

Yes, I believe that 'nearly everyone' objects to the killing of a foetus that could live independently. I don't believe that anywhere near as many people (including the vast majority of those in the pro-choice 'camp') object to what you describe as "woman as chattel". That is abusing the language of women's rights. What we need is reduced unwanted pregnancies, widely and freely available emergency contraception, quick and easy access to early abortion and a reduction in taboo, delay and shame around early abortion.

When you've already been pregnant for 24 weeks, and haven't sought an abortion in that time, do I think that it makes you a "chattel" to continue being pregnant for another 16 weeks? No, I don't.

A "chattel" means you are someone's property. Using that term suggests that you think there's someone else who owns and is exploiting that pregnant woman for their own personal gain. It's not a word that is really relevant to this situation.

Do I think that allowing abortion of healthy foetuses at any gestation, or alternatively removing them from their mother's wombs and keeping them alive on life support, are better solutions than the current status quo, which would improve the welfare (physical and mental) of women and foetuses/babies? No, I don't.

in short, my "better idea" is what we currently have.

I know that when i was 8 months pregnant with my daughter I was not in any simple sense "one person"

That is how YOU felt. I most certainly still felt like one person at 39 weeks, there was only one moment during labour where it occurred to me there would suddenly be an extra person in the room!

It's to do with viability. A twenty four week fetus is viable. Therefore it should be protected. A ten week old fetus isn't. The brain, what makes us human is there, it's not just a collection of cells.

Well, actually a 22 week old is now viable (although very likely to have health problems), so maybe we should drop the limit to 22 weeks? And what if there are more scientiftic advances in the future, that mean a baby could survive from 18 weeks - should we drop it again then?

What we need is reduced unwanted pregnancies, widely and freely available emergency contraception, quick and easy access to early abortion and a reduction in taboo, delay and shame around early abortion

Glad we agree on something :)

Abortion guidelines, if not law, should keep up with science, IMO. A lot of us believed strongly in the "it's just a clump of cells" argument, and it was trotted out on the first page of this thread. Yet we now know the heart starts beating around 6 weeks, and the "cells" are well on their way to looking like the baby they will become.

Forced scans, as in some US states, seem extreme to me, yet I believe women should be aware of what they are aborting.