To be frustrated that it's impossible to have a discussion on abortion ethics....

[coconuttella]

On one side there's those who believe an embryo has fully human rights from conception, and on the other those who believe the foetus has no rights at all until birth.

Both sides seem to put forward their position forcefully and dogmatically as though they're stating the obvious, and anyone who thinks the ethics surrounding it may be a more complex is shouted down, especially by some on the pro-chioice side who seem to view anyone who doesn't agree with their stance as a misogynistic slave of the patriarchy.

Personally, I'm not in either camp and find the ethical questions complex, with this being brought home the other evening when I was reading that Incas didn't regard babies and toddler as having human status until the age of 3-4 (where they had a ceremony to mark this rite of passage) and no longer totally dependent on their mothers and past the most perilous time wrt child mortality. It made me question again my thoughts on when we should a human should acquire rights, and frustrated me that any discussion on this immediately degenerates into a slanging match.

Blink66 it's because so many of those things aren't facts that it's important that women's right to choose is not eroded.

My view is that a woman should have a right to bodily autonomy, it's because that isn't a fact that it's important to state it as a position.

It's because I believe a woman should have bodily autonomy that if pushed, I will defend in a debate the theoretical right of a woman to have a very late termination.

I'm not even sure that the things you mentioned have been presented here as facts.

It is certainly a fact though that there are many people who would like to take away a woman's right to choose whether she continues a pregnancy or under what circumstances she may have that right.

and yes, that does mean, as in all of these choices that it will be imposed on those who do not agree."

No it doesn't. Nobody is going to be forced to have an abortion if the law is extended.

Women will be forced to give birth, however, if the laws are restricted.

Now that is a fact

And as if by magic we have another one - it's an opinion; and one not universally shared.

All this talk of little babies being up for adoption- I had a termination because I didn't want to go through the pregnancy either. I seriously would rather have killed myself than go through 9 months and then labour. You cannot use women as incubators.

And how would this be policed? If an unwillingly pregnant woman has an alcoholic drink r smokes or has an unhealthy diet, could she be prosecuted?

No it doesn't. Nobody is going to be forced to have an abortion if the law is extended

Big if: If society chose this is what they wanted and changed the law to make abortions mandatory in some circumstances, then yes they could be (and would be). As I say - people can state "you cannot force me to go to war", but many were forced to do that.

In other countries precisely that has happened. In China, under the one-child policy, women were forced to abort if they became pregnant again. Maybe it couldn't happen here, but there are those who talk about forced sterilisation for mums who carry on giving birth to children who are then taken into care.

We still need to try and pressure other governments around the world to accord women equal rights to abortions.

Now that is a fact

No, that is an opinion. An opinion I agree with, but still an opinion.

Agree with Blink that there's a lot of presenting opinion as fact on this thread. Dogma can be useful, but it is not fact either.

This I find persuasive: "Blink66 it's because so many of those things aren't facts that it's important that women's right to choose is not eroded."

And I am quite open to persuasion on this subject. Have to say though that I am more persuaded by this kind of thing:

"I'm willing to accept a small amount of 'collateral damage' in the form of late-term healthy foetuses being aborted, because that seems to me to be the least-worst option for society as a whole."

• than I am by this kind of thing:

"YOU'RE ALL A BUNCH OF TORY-VOTING REES-MOGG-LOVING BENEFIT-CUTTING MISOGYNISTIC CUNTS. NO-ONE WILL EVER HAVE A LATE-TERM ABORTION!!! WHY AREN'T YOU OUT SOLVING THE REFUGEE CRISIS? EH? EH?"

(Will go back and catch up on the thread now.)

I should have said, maybe it really wouldn't happen here, but the example of China shows it is possible.

Forced sterilization has happened here in the UK - for disabled women, to prevent more disabled children being born. I don't think it wouldn't happen again (though I have my pessimistic moments, when we seem to be going down a very dark route wrt disability rights).

Don't think it would happen again, sorry.

@KatherinaMinola, true, and apparently in Iceland all babies with Downs are aborted. Now I'm not debating whether abortion because of Downs is right or wrong, but that sounds like pressure being put on women.

But in the U.K. I'm encouraged by the number of Downs children in mainstream schools at least for a time. My DD1 has had a real friendship with a boy in her class who has Downs, he's now been moved to a special school now he's in year 4. But at least women in this country will now be more aware of what Downs is, so they will be able to make an informed decision about whether they'll cope.

I didn't know that about Iceland - I wonder how people feel about that. I have learned a few things on this thread - I didn't know that in Ireland you cannot put a baby up for adoption unless you are unmarried (or unless you claim incompetence to care for a child).

The number of people born with Down's is declining, and so people growing up now will not see people with Down's on a regular basis (as most of us did growing up). This is whole other complex subject, I know.

That down syndrome is being eradicated in Iceland nonsense is bullsh1t FYI.

This was written by a friend of mine and the below excerpt covers the Iceland nonsense.

parentsforchoice.ie/parents-of-children-with-down-syndrome-for-choice/

Firstly, there are hardly any babies (by Irish standards) born in Iceland per year. 4,533 were born in 2012. Ireland has a birth rate of about 70,000 per year. The rate of babies born with Down Syndrome is measured in numbers per 100,000 births. For context, Iceland only has a population of 330,000 in total. In 2012, the reported rate of babies with Down Syndrome born in Iceland was 22 per 100,000. What this actually means is that 1 baby was born with Down Syndrome. Because the number of births is so low, only the tiniest of variations looks like a huge change when in fact it’s a difference of one birth. This could reasonably range between 0 and 8 babies born each year and would mean that their reported rate looks hugely variable – anywhere from 0 per 100,000 births to around 176 per 100,000 births

And then this

www.salon.com/2017/08/16/ted-cruz-sarah-palin-are-really-mad-that-icelandic-parents-are-having-abortions/

Thanks. I just Googled and it looks like it is perhaps a statistical anomaly that the press have run away with a little bit.

Ok, apologies, I'm glad to hear that. Thank you.

That makes sense, of course.

I also had no idea it was only legal in Ireland to have a baby adopted if you weren't married. Surely their archaic laws must go against the UN Convention on Human Rights?

I don't agree that pro choicers are more understanding and show more empathy than pro lifers.

In the early 1970s abortions weren't as easy to get as they are now, the same laws but implemented differently. A local pro life group were doing a campaign and I was stopped in the street and they demanded I sign the petition as they "knew I would support it." I was 21 with a toddler and new born, I was tired and stressed and felt bullied and ended up in tears with them shouting at me. Kindness, empathy?

My second run in with the pro choicers was 20 years later when I was pregnant again (I know I'm a sucker for punishment) and my Consultant knew I didn't want the triple blood test, or amnio. He discussed my choices with me and was perfectly happy. At one check up I saw his Registrar who informed me I had to have both, I said I didn't. He told me I was irresponsible and had to have the tests. I left holding back tears. Pro choice? Only if you make the "correct" choice according to some.

My third upset was at work following the above incident. I was telling a friend what had happened when another member of staff overheard. I got on well with this guy, always thought he was lovely. He was enraged and shouted at me that it was people like me who were dragging the gene pool down and expecting tax payers to fund my retarded child. Remember at this stage there was no indication there was anything wrong with the baby and as he now has a first class honours degree, is studying for his Masters and is physically well I don't think I was guilty of the "crimes" I was accused of.

I wish these pro choicers had shown me as much courtesy and empathy as I would show any woman whatever her decision. As I said before I would never choose an abortion (not relevant now as I am past that age) but I would and have supported other women's decisions that are different to mine. I would never discourage a woman from having diagnostic tests so why should I be forced to have them?

My views are similar to smiling. A woman should not be forced to carry to term a baby she does not want, but should not have the choice to end the life of a baby that might live once born. Post 20 weeks she will have to give birth to the baby anyway , so no-one is forcing her to do something she would not have to already do. For this reason, there should be a regular discussion around medical advances and the 24 week cut off point should be open to review. There were over 3.000 abortions post 20 weeks last year so it is not a tiny number we are talking about here.

There were over 3.000 abortions post 20 weeks last year so it is not a tiny number we are talking about here.

Do you have details of how many of those were TFMR following anomalies uncovered at the 20w scan?

I don't think that the women's rights over her body argument automatically assumes the foetus has no rights. A person who is ill and needs an organ transplant has human rights and a right to life, but not at the expense of someone else. We do not have the legal obligation to keep other people alive using our bodies, whatever their rights. We don't even have that obligation after we die. If we did we would have to give a kidney to someone who needed it, that kind of forced organ donation is the equivalent of forcing the continuation of pregnancy. It isn't just one set of rights vs another or who has rights.

Ok so people saying late terminations in the event of severe foetal abnormalities are not ok, what do you think happens?
My friend was pressured into not having a late termination with her DS and she had to carry him to term, labour and give birth and then spend 4 hours holding his tiny body as he fought for breath, just waiting for his suffering to be over. That is barbaric, utterly and completely barbaric.

as it happens mumof56 I do have a child living in my home whos mum choose not have an termination.

"There were over 3.000 abortions post 20 weeks last year so it is not a tiny number we are talking about here"

Tell us how many post 24 weeks....

@Notreallyarsed, I agree, the moral pressure placed on people to not terminate the pregnancy is appalling. Especially in some Christian circles, I'm sorry to say. A termination in those circumstances is the equivalent of switching off the ventilator when a patient is brain dead. If you're arguing that the foetus has rights, this actually abuses those rights.

when people get abortions pass 20 weeks, it is usually because they discovered something during pregnancy checkup that something is very wrong