to think they would feel differently if they had children?

[Violetbeauregardesgum]

Just reflecting that the three most vehemently pro-abortion, abortion on demand up till 40 weeks women I know are all child free. Was talking to one the other day and was taken aback by how uncompromising she was. The 32 week old baby that the woman was imprisoned for aborting was not a baby, all women have the right to end a pregnancy at any point.

I am pro choice but think the 24 week cut off is about right. AIBU to think they would feel differently if they had gone through a pregnancy to term themselves?

Good point?

How is a late-term aborted baby any different than a stillborn baby?

The only difference is that the life of one baby was intentionally ended whereas the other baby’s death wasn’t.

One baby was wanted and one wasn’t.

Apparently the unwanted baby doesn’t deserve any recognition of its life whereas the wanted stillborn baby does matter and is grieved.

Both scenarios are absolutely awful.

I can’t begin to imagine what it must be like for a woman to have a still birth of it must be absolutely devastating.

And the aborted, unwanted viable babies are just dismissed.

Late-term abortion at any point for any reason is not something that should legally be allowed in my opinion.

Right, but you can't write laws on that basis.

There's no way of proving whether a woman has been raped or not, so either you wouldn't let a woman have an abortion unless she can prove that she has been raped, which is impossible, so in practice you wouldn't even let a woman who has been raped have an abortion, or you would just take her word for it, which means any woman who wants an abortion will just say she has been raped.

Yes I find this very uncomfortable too. No one would ever think to say to a woman who had suffered a miscarriage or stillbirth "that wasn't a baby, just a foetus", and yet when it comes to a child that was deliberately terminated, that's exactly what people say, despite them being the same thing.

I still think abortion should be freely available in early pregnancy, and that, in late pregnancy, a woman who no longer wishes to be pregnant should be able to request induction / a c-section with the child being immediately removed from her care (if that's what she wants), but the above discrepancy still makes me very uneasy. One human should not be able to determine the personhood of another like that, but that's how it is.

One thing I'm curious about. When the 'rights' of men regarding abortion are discussed, it's rightly (IMO) viewed to be not his business because he's not the one pregnant, he doesn't have to give birth etc. There's also nothing he can do to revive his legal status as father (unless both parents put the baby to for addition). I have no issue with any of this.

But, at post viable stage, where the woman has to give birth anyway, and the only decision is whether the baby comes out alive or it dead, it's argued that she should be able to choose death, to avoid forcing her into being a mother.

At that stage, the decision isn't about bodily autonomy, or biologic differences, it's past that -the only question is whether it's been alive or not. Why at that stage should a woman be allowed to opt out of parenthood but a man still not?

(And yes, i know in reality a lot of men are useless and leave most of it to the woman, but I'm taking about the principle here if being able to avoid parenthood when it doesn't involve the use of your body)

Ah - fault. So it’s not about “right to life” and “killing babies”, it’s about punishing someone (well, the woman at least!) who has erred. Who is at fault. That’s clear at least. It’s about policing women’s behaviour.

Women should be exempted from any legal limits on their behaviour just because they are female?

Legal frameworks exist for a reason: to balance everyone's rights so that we can live in a civilised society. History shows us that unfortunately in the absence of this, we cannot just "rely on people to behave reasonably". Life was brutal and horrific. Sadly people's behaviour does require laws to limit it if you wish to live in a stable and safe society where everyone's rights are respected. Why would half of the population be exempt from that?

But it's the same procedure. The same thing happens. So yeah, you are punishing the mother. It's like if I broke my arm because I was hit by a drunk driver I'd be treated, but would be refused treatment if I broke it BMXing because I'm the one who decided to do something potentially dangerous. That would be punishing me.

It's not the same though, is it? Because neither of these circumstances entails that treating your arm involves killing a full term baby. Completely false equivalence. The issue with abortion law is striking an appropriate balance between the rights of the mother and the rights of the baby.

Mayo didn't have an abortion. She brutally murdered her newborn baby in a callous and cruel and painful way. The baby was far for "vulnerable" than her, it seems.

Late abortions for medical reasons are allowed already. So if nobody would do it for any other reason, what's wrong with the law as it stands?

No, I would still advocate the father should be chased down to take financial responsibility etc. they are equally responsible for the sex that leads to the child.

I don't agree with slaughtering viable babies.think it's sick.
Sorry.
Shoot me down

In fact, this is one of the reasons why I don’t agree with pre-marital sex, as it’s easier for men to walk away, and women and children are not as financially protected. Obviously, not all marriages guarantee a safe childhood, but it’s less likely to result in unwanted pregnancies and abortions. People would be more likely to take some responsibility in marriage, as opposed to relationships without proper commitment.

Oh fgs. Plenty of men who abandon their children or abuse their wives and children are married. 🙄

Yes, I know - I didn’t deny this. I said it’s less likely for women to be left alone, unwanted children and abortions to take place, if at least the sex was within marriage. They’d also get more financial protection, as opposed to a bf who ran away without any implications.

Plenty of marriages end in divorce and plenty of long term relationships work out just fine, marriage really isn’t some sort of magic wand.

I understand, but at least marriage provides more responsibilities and rights for spouses and children, in comparison to casual sex and relationships without legal commitment.

Also how far do you take this?. When do you start excusing the likes of wider child killings. .
Logan mwangi, star hobson, Arthur labino-huges?
Because their parents shouldn't have been 'forced to be parents' either
So the lives of their children no longer mattered.

Are we tethering on a society that starts to legalise child homicide?

No, the PP said that abortion is killing a baby and therefore wrong, and people having sex have to take the consequences of their actions and not be able to get an abortion. She then said that in the case of rape, an abortion should be allowed.

Which makes no logical sense - either you're against abortion because it is killing a baby and is unconscionable, or it's not. The PP was basically saying women who choose to have sex get what they deserve if they end up with an unwanted pregnancy,and was rightly challenged on that. So the analogy is good - we don't give or withhold medical treatment based on how you came to need the treatment.

Meh, marriage isn’t for everyone. I never intend to get married, but you know what, the kids we had through our causal uncommitted sex are just fine and 20 years later we’re still together when so many our age are getting divorced.

marriage is meaningless, it’s the commitment with in the relationship that counts. You can also tie things up legally without being married. Abstaining until marriage is so pointless.

The biggest increase in abortions in the UK was after child benefit for more than 2 children was withdrawn

So actually reinstating that would decrease abortions rather than punishing women who have sex outside of marriage

Funnily enough that doesn't seem to be on the agenda of some pro life people though.

They’d also get more financial protection, as opposed to a bf who ran away without any implications.

You're making a lot of presumptions. Many women these days are the higher earners and getting married is very unwise, financially. Please stop throwing your prejudices and generalisations around.

So what? You claim you have an issue with abortion because it kills the unborn, well it does that no matter how the child was conceived.

Ah, I just realised that @reddragon7 is the homophobic misogynistic who started a thread about how men and women follow traditional gender roles and acted all surprised when people didn't agree. Can't believe I wasted my time with them again.

Oooooh that one

Normally I am good with names but I had about an hours sleep last night and so that one past me by

No point engaging with that poster!

Oh! 🤦🏻‍♀️

Uuuurgh. Will such people ever give up their attempt to manipulate any topic onto their obsession with misogyny? So tiresome. 🙄

How can a foetus be 'innocent'? It has no capacity for thought and even when it gains personhood on delivery, all it can process is mummy/milk. It is incapable of being innocent or guilty.
I can't stand the use of all this emotive language when the only things that count are scientifically proven facts and the law.

One meaning of the word is "free from moral wrong; not corrupted: an innocent child"

People are referring - I presume - to a child being a sentient being that can feel pain and fear and suffer and has done no wrong so doesn't deserve to be killed as a result of circumstances that they had no hand in.