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.

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.

I'm not suggesting you stop having sex. What I'm suggesting is that there is no moral argument to be made that the state is obliged to assume responsibility for your (or my) sex life. The argument is usually couched in terms of morality.

What I'm suggesting is that there is no moral argument to be made that the state is obliged to assume responsibility for your (or my) sex life

Well the state has to assume responsibility if the pregnancy is continued. I see no issue in the opposite being true.

I see no issue in the opposite being true.

Just so we're clear, before I continue as often accuse me of willful misrepresentation, are you saying the state is morally obliged to provide you access to technology that allow you to have the sex life you desire ? That it is a moral obligation ?

@ElonMask
So you think women should be blocked from paying privately to a private doctor from having a late term abortion because you think other people won't like it?

So you think women should be blocked from paying privately to a private doctor from having a late term abortion because you think other people won't like it?

Yes. There are plenty of things we don't allow just because two adults want to.

@itsbetterthanabox

I can’t speak for Elon, but generally the reason people don’t support abortion on demand to term is that they believe, morally, that the foetus acquires a level of rights and dignity as it matures to the point of being able to survive independently (and often beforehand).

If I recall correctly the NHS was founded because the state believed it had a moral duty to provide healthcare to all. Currently both contraception and termination of pregnancy are available through the NHS; both are subject to some limitations. However, it seems reasonable to infer that the state believes it has a moral duty to care for its citizens' (or residents') sexual health.

The state is not morally obliged to deal with the consequences of my desire to have sexual intercourse

The thing is, society in civilised countries do have a moral obligation to the children that result from sex; so we have a vested interest in ensuring that the children that do result from sexual relations are wanted and well-cared for. Of course, we fall far short of that ideal, but it’s worth striving for.

To me, that means providing free or subsidised birth control (so poorer women can access them easily) and free abortion provisions up to a certain point.

Women will have sex before they are ready to be mothers, with men wholly unsuitable
as life partners, or never have intentions to become mothers ever.

I have no interest in saddling them with the consequences of those actions/decisions, because I believe it will be harmful to society as a whole.

Is it a moral obligation? Maybe not, but as a taxpayer, I do have some skin in the game. To me, it’s a far better use of resources to push free contraception/early abortion rather than force women to live with the consequences of their bad decisions or contraceptive failure.

If I recall correctly the NHS was founded because the state believed it had a moral duty to provide healthcare to all. Currently both contraception and termination of pregnancy are available through the NHS; both are subject to some limitations. However, it seems reasonable to infer that the state believes it has a moral duty to care for its citizens' (or residents') sexual health.

I don’t think anyone on here would disagree with this.... it’s the belief that this should mean abortion on demand to terms that’s the issue.

I don't disagree Pineapple..but I still dont think arguing that the state is morally compelled to enable my sex life and morally obliged to protect me from any consequences of my own actions is persuasive. It's certainly not as compelling as the argument that abortion is morally wrong in and of itself. I realise as someone who is largely pro choice I am arguing for essentially a fudge. A similar conclusion to the current law which is basically that it is ok to kill a foetus early on because it's not a "proper" baby yet.

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).

The current law is based on the point at which the foetus may be able to feel pain - it certainly can't feel pain before 24 weeks gestation so we can guarantee there is no suffering to the foetus before that point.

And what about the terrible physical disabilities that come with many people with Down's syndrome eg huge cardiac problems? What about the hidden population of Down's syndrome who live with disabilities so profound they are not able to live in the community? Should people be forced to keep babies that may have such profound disabilities?

• @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.*

Perhaps if people recognised addiction as a disease caused by society then a selfish process addicts wouldn't be deemed to be such a burden. Why is addiction the only illness which we perpetually blame the sufferer for?

You support eugenics but not abortion? WOW. How conflicting. How do you manage that?

Fruitcider

What are you on about? Who mentioned eugenics?

Wasnt it you with the madey uppy story about 7 month pregnant heroin addicts with four previous pregnancy's who didn't realise they were pregnant till they were in prison?

You're talking about people like they're stray cats or something. This scenario has not happened. Heroin is a helluva drug but it doesn't stop someone from going to the doctors.

There is no one as far as I know actually calling for abortions after 24 weeks except for severe foetal abnormalities or danger to the mother.

No one actually Wants a late abortion so what on earth are you arguing about?

Anyhow, a more likely scenario for a woman presenting requesting an at term abortion would be a woman claiming her unborn is a demon or something and heralds the end of the world.

I would hope the mental health team were called in rather than being whisked off to theatre to have her baby's brains sucked out.

Psychotic episodes often pass with treatment. I don't think putting her through the trauma of a partial birth abortion would actually help her long term.

Most of us here ARE pro choice. I just think your slogans crap. As early as possible, as late as necessary makes people focus on the as late part and all its impractical, gory implications.

No one wants that, it's not actually good for women and makes pro choice look mental.

Y ou're talking about people like they're stray cats or something. This scenario has not happened. Heroin is a helluva drug but it doesn't stop someone from going to the doctors.

Of course not, I'll just go and tell some of my patients they are a figment of my imagination then 🙄

These arguments are getting crazier. How can full term abortion be better than bribing someone to use contraception (in the drug addict scenario above)? Surely it's better for the foetus but also the woman? How do you think giving 4 children up for adoption compares to having 4 late term (by which I mean post 24 weeks) abortions from the woman's mental health point of view? I imagine both would be catastrophic. There has to be an argument for encouraging (not enforcing) a reversible but reliable form of contraception. Bodily autonomy is a bit of a red herring - anyone in a position to have 4 children removed for adoption who would prefer to have them aborted at term, has obviously not got much control over their lives.

Also I don't see how the op's situation (mentioned a few pages ago - pregnant at 16 whilst in an abusive relationship, had an abortion at 19 weeks, then later on had another abortion at 12 weeks) is at all relevant to the argument. OP had 2 abortions done legally and paid for by the state.

The 4 week delay was bad, but there are people having cancer treatments delayed by months and dying as a result, the NHS is a long way from perfect.

Recovering in a bed next to a man with a knee injury is a separate issue - I think most wards have gone back to being single sex nowadays because people didn't like mixed wards, but it's not really relevant to the ethical issues and does not indicate a lack of respect.

Obviously the situation was tragic for the OP, but having an abortion as a result of an abusive relationship is always going to be horrible. The OP also clearly feels some guilt and blame for her own actions, whereas she should have been much better supported at the time. Clearly her parents failed her as they should have called the police. Why was the op allowed to continue in this relationship for another 4 years? Why was she not helped after the first abortion?

However none of this is an argument for allowing late (post 24 weeks) abortions purely for reasons of choice. Killing a viable baby would not have stopped the abuse the op was going through. And 2 wrongs don't make a right. In all probability it would make things worse because in this case the woman did not have so called bodily autonomy due to being in an abusive relationship, therefore they are likely to be coerced into a late abortion, which may well cause much further distress. Secondly I believe a viable foetus (potentially over 24 weeks) does have rights, and if the health risk to the mother is not increased, it should have the right to life.

Wasnt it you with the madey uppy story about 7 month pregnant heroin addicts with four previous pregnancy's who didn't realise they were pregnant till they were in prison?

Oh gosh I really wish that story was made up. Sadly it's true. Happens all the time!

However none of this is an argument for allowing late (post 24 weeks) abortions purely for reasons of choice. Killing a viable baby

Here's your mistake, the abortion limit is not linked to viability.

These arguments are getting crazier. How can full term abortion be better than bribing someone to use contraception (in the drug addict scenario above)?

Because ethically where does it stop? Vulnerable people should not be bribed to have medication that comes with risks, particularly not when money is a huge driver for them. Most women in that situation want LARCs and quite happily have them when they are a captive audience eg in prison.

There's many reasons why they can't access services in the community:

• Many mainstream services don't put up with intoxicated people on the premises
• People lose track of time when they are high
• people who use also sleep during the day to go out and "earn money" at night.
• the pain of withdrawals is terrible so scoring will be prioritised over healthcare appointments.

If we ran drop in sexual health clinics in the night where this group of people associate and made LARCs available I'm sure the take up rate would be huge. Sadly no such services exist at the minute.

*in a second

Excuse the text speak, i apologise

Some people with Downs Syndrome live unhappy, unfulfilled lives and suffer from serious health problems.

Some genetic conditions are sex specific. Some women will suffer at the hands of their partner or family if they have a baby of the “wrong” sex.

It’s very rarely as simple as it looks.

Bertrand, some people without any syndromes live unhappy unfulfilled lives and develop serious health problems. I spent this afternoon with a cousin who works in group homes with adults with learning difficulties and he was talking about 2 residents who have lived into their 70's with Downs and what great lives they have had.

I am not sure anyone can easily say what the state's moral obligat+ions are eg to protect all unobrn children or only to allow kililng of those with disabliites people don't like or whatever. We have a compromise Great Britain which works okay and we should probably leave the law as it stands.

A lot of British parents abort down's babies and do so lawfully. I do not think there would huge support for a change whether before or after 24 weeks.