Abortion limits lowered part 2

[CosmicCanary]

I messed up the last one.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3458517-To-think-late-term-abortion-rules-may-need-tightening-up

The limits should not be lowered in my view.
I am pro choice to the point where it is the womans choice as long as her body is required.

As harrowing as that is, still doesn't justify killing a full term baby. I know a few people who have had awful lives, some just as bad, if not worse, as the picture you have painted. None have ever said they wish they had been aborted pre birth. None. They all had their demons and struggles but they were trying (with varying degrees of success or not) to overcome them. Some didn't and seemed passively acceptive of their current situation. Some were suicidal. No one would ever ever suggest to them that maybe it was better they had been aborted instead of born. Cos that would be fucking wrong, disgusting, unsympathetic and no person with an ounce of worth would think like that. Except it would seem for some people on this thread.

irnbru my post was focused on the woman, not the unborn foetus. My patients are my concern, not an unborn being in their womb. My patients have personhood, the foetus doesn't.

I know very few of you will agree but I think 16 weeks is late enough except in very extreme circumstances.
I think abortion post 28 weeks is wrong unless baby or mother would die if left. Of course abortion means the baby would die anyway...
Certainly a moral dilemma for some people.
Once I became pregnant my body wasn’t just ‘mine’ .
Sorry I know you don’t want to know this.., it’s my honest opinion and shared as part of a discussion.

“Sorry I know you don’t want to know this.., it’s my honest opinion and shared as part of a discussion.”

Not sure why you are putting it like that- it’s a very commonly held opinion.

larrygrylls

You have it exactly right in my view. I argued the same in the last thread but rather than debate the points you raise, which as you correctly point out would need to be codified in law if the "to term for any reason" bunch had their way, you will be accused of straw manning and hyperbole.

The whole debate is ridiculous

Let's change the law so a woman can abort healthy babies up to birth for any reason she wants.

Let's discuss what this means and how it would work in practice.

ah but no woman would actually do that anyway, so thats a straw man argument and I won't engage, and by the way why do you hate women so much ?

I find the “where are you going to find homes for all these babies?” on the same level as “I assume you’ll put these refugees in your home?”

For one, full-term abortion of healthy fetuses would still be a very rare occurrence if the practice was legalised and, even then, physicians would still have to be willing to do it.

I don’t actually think we’d have a spate of healthy babies to find homes for. There needs to be a cutoff to ensure women have guaranteed access to a certain point; a very few will find themselves on the other side, and it’s sad. Then again, very rarely a pregnant woman will never get the chance to choose at all, as they don’t know they are pregnant until they go into labor!

But to save one baby at 26 weeks while throwing another on the medical waste pile based solely on the feelings of the mother is something not widely supported. I think 24 weeks is a very generous cutoff, and I consider myself very pro-choice. I guess others here disagree.

FruitCider

But your most recent argument is based on the premise that it would have been better for that person if they had never been born.... nothing to do with the mother. At least own your argument...

The other problem I have with the tone of the debate is the sense of entitlement.

Sexual intercourse carries with it certain consequences, pregnancy is the main one, perceived as a risk usually.

People now demand that risk free sex is their right. Free contraception and free abortion to term whatever the cost. 99.9% of women who ever existed did not get to go around shagging whoever they wanted whenever they wanted because they did not have access to safe and reliable contraception and abortion if that happened to fail. All of this a privilege and not a right.

But your most recent argument is based on the premise that it would have been better for that person if they had never been born.... nothing to do with the mother. At least own your argument...

Hmm... I'm pretty sure I haven't said that. And this is the second time I've had to challenge that I've said. I'm not interested in the unborn foetus - my concern is the pregnant woman that does not want to become a mother to a(nother) child.

Hmm... I'm pretty sure I haven't said that. And this is the second time I've had to challenge that I've said. I'm not interested in the unborn foetus - my concern is the pregnant woman that does not want to become a mother to a(nother) child.

But your whole argument at the top of this page is based on the awful life that the daughter would have, and how not only would she have a wretched existence, but would be a burden to society, and how she goes on to perpetuate the cycle. It’s more persuasive as an argument to sterilise drug addicts than to legalise late term abortion.

But the idea of abortion at 37 weeks of an otherwise healthy pregnancy for 'any reason' is fucking abhorant and you know it.

Of course it is !!! Come on.

No my whole argument is a woman has had to go through the trauma of having 4 children removed from her, further deepening her mental health problems and making recovery from addiction less likely due to the guilt she has to endure from causing 4 children to live with profound difficulties. I do not see my patients as a burden to society - addiction isn't a drug problem, it's a societal problem!

The law even before 1967 was based on the number of weeks at which a baby born after that would be likely to survive, given care normally or widely available from the medical profession. Nowadays there are babies who survive after 22 weeks or so, so to reflect that in law is consistent with the law of at least the last 50 years.

What grates with me most is abortion based on sex of a baby (usually it will be female foetuses aborted) or on the grounds of Downs Syndrome (anyone who knows a child or adult with the condition most likely knows a lovely person who would be one of the last you would ever wish harm to).

Abortion is such a tragic topic. I don't know anyone who's aborted and not been emotionally scarred, whatever her reasons. I strongly feel it's the wrong fight though. I think it's utterly disgusting that modern medicine still does not offer anything better than what it did in the 60s. Contraception is still not failsafe, sometimes still not entirely safe (hormonal contraception) and it's still mostly the woman's responsibility. I want complete control over my body before I'm faced with a moral dilemma. That's what we should push for. Equality in contraception, better contraception and more options!

@FruitCider Come off it drug addicts are a terrible drain on society and anyone who comes within a mile of them. Many children of drug addicts and alcoholics are successful. This cycle you give as a reason is more of a cycle of poverty, lack of education and aspirations. I definitely believed enforced birth control (extra money for participating) is more suitable. Then ending a full term foetus's life.

@ElonMask
I don't think it's entitled.
Everyone should take better precautions to not get pregnant but it just sounds like you want to punish women for getting pregnant.
If the entitlement is the problem then don't do it on the NHS. It can be private medicine. Why should the law stop women paying privately?

Why should the law stop women paying privately?

The state is not morally obliged to deal with the consequences of my desire to have sexual intercourse, there is no moral argument there, it just isn't. As for whether it should outlaw late term abortion for any reason, well I think the state should make laws that reflect the feelings of the majority of the country. I see a moral argument for disallowing abortion, but it's difficult to see how abortion is morally right. The grey area exists because it is technically possible to have an abortion safely and most people do not morally object to early abortions.

The state is not morally obliged to deal with the consequences of my desire to have sexual intercourse, there is no moral argument there, it just isn't

Well the state seems to think it has a moral duty to prevent pregnancy; hence giving free contraception. To me this is merely an extension of that.

I definitely believed enforced birth control (extra money for participating) is more suitable.

Ah, so you'd argue for even less bodily autonomy for vulnerable women. I have to say I disagree in the strongest terms with enforced contraception for any woman who has capacity.

Well the state seems to think it has a moral duty to prevent pregnancy; hence giving free contraception. To me this is merely an extension of that.

What do you mean ? Surely not that abortion is an extension of contraception and in the same category morally ?

The state does not have a moral duty to prevent pregnancy.

Surely not that abortion is an extension of contraception and in the same category morally

Yup. For me it absolutely is in certain situations.

The state does not have a moral duty to prevent pregnancy

So why does the state give free options to prevent pregnancy?

So why does the state give free options to prevent pregnancy?

You appear to be arguing now that the state is morally responsible for providing you the means to have the kind of sex you want ? You surely can't believe that ?

Yup. For me it absolutely is in certain situations.

This sounds like what some weak pro lifers say, i.e. it's only ok if the pregnancy was the result of a rape.

This sounds like what some weak pro lifers say, i.e. it's only ok if the pregnancy was the result of a rape

I take contraceptions. Totally correctly. I had a pregnancy scare. To me, that would simply have been a form of contraception - although in the end it wasn’t necessary.

I’m not prepared to stop having sex, the state gives me the option to deal with an (unlikely) pregnancy. It wouldn’t be a difficult decision, nor would I feel any guilt.