Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

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

999 replies

coconuttella · 06/09/2017 19:54

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.

OP posts:
Mumof56 · 08/09/2017 19:32

Now what?

We kill them

AssassinatedBeauty · 08/09/2017 19:33

I just find it a little odd that you would consider an abortion a tragedy when the woman who had it doesn't think that at all.

I agree that woman in the UK now are much more fortunate that our predecessors and an unwanted pregnancy in a situation where you haven't got access to safe legal abortion is a tragedy.

mowgeli · 08/09/2017 19:46

@Polliver you are dillusional if you think they Don't.
You clearly live some sort of sheltered life. It is very much real where I live.

Thanks though for knowing about the entire country.

I do not see why some sort of a jury isn't a good idea? I didn't say I had a solid plan.
If you have a legitimate or genuine reason for needing an abortion what on earth do you have to hide from a panel?

Sounds like you live on la la land.

ARumWithAView · 08/09/2017 19:48

And so I became pro life and pro choice because I am grateful that I have the choice to hold pro life personal views. Grin If the anti-choice bridgade had their way I wouldn't have the option.

Yes! I tried to write a post about this earlier, but it's so difficult to express it with any coherence. Possibly because it's so contradictory.

Being female, pro-life and anti-choice (ie you believe legislation should remove or limit access to abortion, remove or limit access to medical treatment which may harm the foetus, and possibly limit access to contraceptive healthcare, depending on the severity of your beliefs), you're basically arguing yourself out of the argument. Pro-choice, pro-life: what does it even matter? You're a woman. Your position is that women cannot be trusted with their own body, do not have the moral authority to make decisions about their body, and that an unfertilised egg/fertilised egg/embryo/foetus (again, depending on severity of belief) possesses equal or superior rights to the woman in whose body it exists. Again: you are a woman. You are essentially arguing away your status and autonomy, arguing that you cannot be trusted (hence the need for legislation), arguing that you don't really matter.

I think some women assume that legislation applies to the other women, the ones who need to have their behaviour checked; they've already ruled out abortion in their own lives, so it makes no difference if someone else forbids them from having one (but it makes a fuckload of difference!). Or that they're somehow objective individuals just participating in a debate, and not a member of the group whose status and autonomy are being downgraded. But if you're female, pro-life and anti-choice, you need to accept that you're arguing that your opinion doesn't matter. Whereas being pro-life and pro-choice, as MaisyPops said, does give you the right to your own decisions and opinions.

It's like those old debates in which women argued that women shouldn't vote, or attend university, or be politicians; anything based on the notion of females having lower status, lower mental capacity, lower moral authority or whatever else. 'I strongly believe that nobody should listen to me and that firm limits should be placed on my power!'. The rhetorical equivalent of sawing off the branch you're sitting on.

AssassinatedBeauty · 08/09/2017 19:50

"A legitimate or genuine reason for needing an abortion" the only reason for needing an abortion is the fact that the woman wants one. That's all anyone should need to know. Your "idea", @mowgeli , of a judgment panel is absurd, it would be barbaric and would drive women to seek illegal and unsafe abortions. It's also offensively misogynistic.

MrsHathaway · 08/09/2017 19:53

I just find it a little odd that you would consider an abortion a tragedy when the woman who had it doesn't think that at all.

I'm not sure whether this a semantic difference or an emotional one. Logically and practically it makes fuck all difference though.

Pro choice but not pro abortion means wanting to permit safe abortions, but take other steps (commitment to: access to education, health care including contraception, and equal rights generally) to ensure as few are needed as possible.

mowgeli · 08/09/2017 19:56

How can I have manly ideas by saying that an abortion should be approved by a group of people in a panel or a jury what the hell is not to like about that.
If your situation is genuine then it would be approved.. its not there to catch people out it's about making women and men think about their actions.

MrsHathaway · 08/09/2017 19:58

Why does a panel get to choose what a woman does with her body?

Should we have panels for long term contraception such as the coil or implant, or sterilisation? What about tattoos and piercings?

AssassinatedBeauty · 08/09/2017 19:59

I agree with what you're saying wrt it making no difference practically. What I mean is that I'm not sure that describing all abortions as tragedies is helpful. I think it alienates women who had an unwanted pregnancy through no particularly upsetting situation and had a straightforward abortion with no negative consequences.

mowgeli · 08/09/2017 20:12

@MrsHathaway yes get carried away, shall we ban chocolate too? Sensor the internet?

We are talking about ending a potential life here and it is not a decision to be made lightly.

Calm down love

JAPAB · 08/09/2017 20:13

BarrackerBarmer Cut out a kidney, it's your body, but let the law prosecute the person who buys it

Well, that interferes with the choice to sell a kidney albeit indirectly. It is like saying that a person has the right to become a sex worker but you'll lock up any client if they do this. These are very theoretical sorts of rights then. They seem to exist as a theory rather than something that can be freely exercised without interference.

But anyway, fair enough with regards to your other responses re those who support time limits not being fully pro-choice.

MrsHathaway · 08/09/2017 20:15

I'm perfectly calm, thank you. My conscience is completely clear.

Mittens1969 · 08/09/2017 20:17

@Elendon, there's no need to use the f word at me. Pro choice women can be equally objectionable as pro-life Americans. I haven't been arguing an anti-choice agenda in case you haven't noticed.

MrsHathaway · 08/09/2017 20:21

I agree, and that's why it's not a thought I tend to voice. It's an opinion and not a fact - I tend to keep my discussion of abortion to facts such as how abortion law affects abortion rates rather than emotional opinions about oppression v human potential.

But in this case someone asked how it's possible to be pro-choice without being pro-abortion and the answer is "believing abortion is a necessary evil".

Necessary evil being an idiomatic phrase meaning "thing we don't much like which is a zillion times better than the alternative". Terminations are not actually evil, unless you have a very odd idea of humanity and morality.

Which brings us back to J R-M, probably.

OvariesBeforeBrovaries · 08/09/2017 20:26

what the hell is not to like about that

For starters, it's a really shit idea.

What gives someone the right to decide whether someone else could have an abortion?

If your situation is genuine then it would be approved

A) The only thing that makes a woman's situation "genuine" is to a) be a woman, b) be pregnant and c) not want to be pregnant any more. That is all that is required to make a woman's situation "genuine", and it doesn't take a panel to figure out if that's the case.

B) Don't be so naive. Your ideal panel is biased to begin with, but how do you suggest you control for the individual opinions of the panel? Two women in identical situations could go before two different panels, and one would be approved and the other rejected because one panel is full of sensible people who don't see it as their right to control women's bodies, and the other panel is comprised of pro-lifers.

AssassinatedBeauty · 08/09/2017 20:27

It was "tragedy" not "necessary evil" that I was responding to. Clearly "necessary evil" is a turn of phrase that most people would understand as not literal.

Batteriesallgone · 08/09/2017 20:34

a person has the right to become a sex worker but you'll lock up any client if they do this

That is exactly my position on sex workers. They should not be considered to be committing a crime, their clients should.

It's really not hard to get your head around. Doing what you like with your own body = ok, dictating (through payment, the legal system, or any other means) what other people do with their bodies = not ok.

MrsHathaway · 08/09/2017 20:36

Yes, you're quite right.

My considered opinion is that abortion is a necessary evil. I'm ready to defend that opinion with facts.

My gut feeling is that a termination is a tragedy. Not like a landslide is a tragedy, more like how a heartbreak is a tragedy. I can't explain exactly why I think that.

I'm sorry if I upset or annoyed you (or anyone else who hasn't engaged) by not drawing a distinction between the two.

christinarossetti · 08/09/2017 20:44

It's an unwanted pregnancy that's the tragedy, not the choices that the woman makes about it imvho.

AssassinatedBeauty · 08/09/2017 20:46

It's not important really, but I

AssassinatedBeauty · 08/09/2017 20:47

... still don't understand why an unwanted pregnancy is always a tragedy.

Mittens1969 · 08/09/2017 21:00

Maybe tragedy isn't the right word, it's very melodramatic for something that happens as often as unwanted pregnancies. I like the expression 'necessary evil' to describe abortion though. It can never be a good thing but it needs to be available for women.

Batteriesallgone · 08/09/2017 21:02

Tragedy is a strong word.

But I do agree having to suffer a heavier period than normal is a shame. Taking hormones you wouldn't otherwise have to take is a shame.

We all engage in various levels of risky activity, but when they result in needing to undergo medical procedures - that's a shame. I don't think maybe people would enjoy taking pills or having a D&C. They are unfortunate procedures, even if their impact on you is minimal.

MrsHathaway · 08/09/2017 21:07

I was avoiding the word "shame" as it can have connotations of guilt but I think it's equivalent, yes.

GreatFuckability · 08/09/2017 21:08

mowgeli Lets not pretend your 'panel' is anything other than a way to shame the bad woman who finds herself pregnant and not wanting it, why else would the poor childless couple who would do anything to have a baby be part of the make up? its such a ridiculous trope its not even funny.