To think that people like anti-abortionist Kristan Hawkins are the enemy of women and feminism everywhere

[Purplefoxes]

Maybe extreme but..I was just reading this BBC article (link below) on Kristan Hawkins and it made my blood boil as I am pro choice. She is the woman from the US organisation Students for Life of America and has been instrumental in over turning Roe v Wade. She is now on the back of this 'success' campaigning for total abortion ban across America . The overturning of Roe V Wade is a decision which will likely result in the death or debilitation of many pregnant women who either cannot access much needed abortions for health reasons or try to access back street illegal abortions or could even commit suicide as a result. Not to mention there could be many unwanted children dumped into the care system or brought up in abusive environments. I just cannot fathom why anyone, let alone a woman would do this. I'm sure if it was one of her kids who was pregnant and needed a medical abortion to save their life she'd change her tune! How blinkered does a person have to be to not think of the impact of banning abortion on both women and children! And how has such medieval policy been allowed to happen in modern day America..could this happen in the UK?! Are we losing our rights as women? When did the life of a fetus become more important than the life of its mother?

BBC article

Literally nobody has said that. This is another pro life straw man.

Can you seriously not see the difference between a miscarriage and an abortion?

When someone miscarries, it’s usually a very much wanted baby. It’s one that would have been born if carried to term. I’ve had many miscarriages. Too many.. and I grieved most.

An abortion is usually because the woman can’t, or won’t carry the pregnancy to term, or their is something wrong with the foetus.

Some women will grieve this. Especially ones who didn’t want an abortion but had to. Some won’t. Some will be thankful they have that choice. But it is their choice. It is their body. They have the choice to carry it to term or not.

So a baby is only a baby when it is wanted? When does choice stop? When is a baby a human with its own life? That is a really a fundamental question. I don’t think many people agree it is 24 weeks. I am not anti abortion but there has to be some realism here about the life of the child. Personally I feel very uncomfortable about abortion after the first trimester for lifestyle choice but I realise this is a subject where it appears there is very little debate allowed.

It's categorically not her body. It's another human with a unique DNA, it's own internal organs. Why should the value of its life matter if it's "wanted or unwanted"?

Whether you, personally, feel uncomfortable about abortion after a certain point is irrelevant apart from when it's your foetus/baby. You don't get to impose your personal moral code onto other people here. You just don't.

You can hate abortion all you like, that's totally fine. Nobody really likes abortion but the fact is that it's a necessary, often life-saving intervention for many women and banning it does not stop it.

Fundamentally, the debate here is not whether you think abortion should be allowed. Abortions happen whether they are legal or not. The question is whether you think all women should have access to safe abortion, or unsafe abortion, and, let's face it, that's not a debate at all.

That does haunt you a bit!

That puts it quite well I think

Well there are two reasons. One is that as you say one likely result of speed meets egg is indeed a baby who deserves care from a capable and loving parent. I see abortion are up 17% since the increase in the cost of living. Contraception and abortion have changed the lives of children who are born into wealthier families often better resourced to support them. In my family I didn’t see any of my gran’s 15 children deciding ho have more than two. They lived the reality of poverty, overcrowding and scant maternal time or affection. So many humans living badly in our society - all this compassion for these yet to be born could be better invested at your local soup kitchen, refuge, youth club etc. A mother’s judgement about what her family will look like? How many children can be managed is if fundamental importance to the well being of everyone in it. That one particular sperm met one particular egg and stuck is of no particular importance and when women overwhelmingly want and have wary abortions then this is what we should be making as easily accessible as possible.

yhe other reason that mothers are more than hosts and their necessary independence means they should never be forced to grow and birth a baby because their rights come first is, for most of us, of supreme importance. If you can’t see that then I think your lack of compassion for the principle and the many things it’s protects us from makes you terrifying.

You're argument is similar to saying "you may not want to own slaves but you should let me own them".

Morally abhorrent things (such as abortion) should not be allowed and the government should send money enforcing these laws. We shouldn't allow women to kill their own children simply because they'd do it anyway.

So you'd ban all abortion for any reason then? Including a raped 10 year old, or a women who needs to have chemo or she'll die? If its all about the value of the foetus' life, logically that would be your position?

What about the women who have serious medical complications and are at risk of death if carrying on their pregnancy? What about those who cannot survive to term due to medical complications? Do you not feel there so some leeway? And how do you feel about rape and incest?

Apart from this I agree I’m not a fan of abortion but the number of children who would be abused and I’m sorry to say, killed when born, is unbearable. For me an abortion before 12 weeks is preferable.

Abortion is a medical procedure just like any other, sometimes necessary to save life, other times not but either way it's still equally valid a choice to make.

You might think it's morally abhorrent, I do not. The beauty of a pro-choice viewpoint is both of us get to have our own thoughts on the matter without impacting the other person. Pro-lifers/anti-choicers are arrogant fuckers who think that their opinion is worth more than anyone elses and they can shove that up their bums.

The only person who ultimately gets to decide whether they have that procedure is the person involved. Not you, not the courts, not anyone else.

Nobody is killing children. A foetus is not a child. It has no rights, it has no thoughts or feelings. You know who does have thoughts and feelings though? Yeah, that's right, the woman carrying it.

The alternative to safe, legal abortion is many more women on top of those who already do dying each year due to unsafe procedures. Pro-life my fucking arse.

For me. It would only be in the case where the mothers life was in danger and where the pregnancy would kill her.

The SA argument is touted out a lot. Yes SA is vile and abhorrent but a quick Google search and a look at the data shows that at least 98% of abortions aren't due to SA. Also for a 10 year old it would qualify under medical necessity.

You think it's morally abhorrent, that's just your opinion, it's not a fact. I think your wish to ban safe legal abortion is morally abhorrent. Noone is killing children, no one is keeping slaves, your arguments are in poor faith. And the law allows for abortion, so no the government will not be spending money enforcing the law as you'd like it to be.

A fetus is a child. It's just in the womb. The fetus' neural net develops and grows. It does have a nervous system, it can react to stimuli. It does have thoughts and feelings. I want a society where the mother and the child both live.

My bit on enforcement was more about what I wished for in our society

yeah we hear you - agony, mental health issues, physical problems, relationship issues, abuse, rape, illness - non of this matters as long as you incubate some cells to term. The arrogance that makes you think it’s ok to force this on any other woman is stunning. I was listening to some teens talk about this topic and could hear how the Roe v Wade had galvanised them to such a detailed understanding of the issues that it was sophisticated to that of me and my peers at the same age. I have great confidence that these girls will grow into women who won’t be suffering any reduction of their rights never mind the punitive state sanctioned coercion that you dream of.

No.
www.rcog.org.uk/guidance/browse-all-guidance/other-guidelines-and-reports/fetal-awareness-updated-review-of-research-and-recommendations-for-practice/

But you said

Morally abhorrent things (such as abortion) should not be allowed and the government should send money enforcing these laws. We shouldn't allow women to kill their own children simply because they'd do it anyway.

So abortion is morally abhorrent and is women killing their own children, but you're in favour of it if the mothers life is in danger? So you agree with the morally abhorrent killing of children, just in the circumstances you decide are justified? Your position is not coherent.

Yes, it is coherent, it’s defined as ‘a life for a life’. If you believe that both lives are of equal value, then it becomes a straight choice between the lives of the mother and her unborn child. For Christian pro-life campaigners (in the UK at least), the mother’s life would come first in these circumstances, especially if there were other children involved. (I read quite extensively when studying Ethics during my degree in Theology.)

Clearly that isn’t what is happening in the US states with abortion bans, as doctors are afraid to step in for fear of prosecution. So pregnant women are having their lives put at risk as a result.

It's not coherent though is it?Saying on the one hand that abortion is morally wrong and and shouldn't be allowed, and then saying it should be allowed, but only under the circumstances I've decided, upon isn't coherent. You can't think it should be banned and it should be allowed at the same time.

I want a society where the mother and child both live because the mother wants the child, not because some random person who has never met the mother, will never meet the mother and will do fuck all to support the mother things is naive enough to think there can always be a happy ending.

@nothingcomestonothing

But I’m talking about a scenario where an abortion is necessary to save the mother’s life, if it was too early in the pregnancy for the baby to be viable (otherwise there would be an emergency C section obviously).

And actually pro-life supporters who take this position, despite their vociferous opposition to a pro-choice position on abortion, wouldn’t say that abortion is always wrong, just that there is only one acceptable reason for it, which is as an emergency to save the mother’s life. And a medical emergency to save the mother’s life would be entirely consistent with this position.