Nigel Farage on abortions- slippery slope?

[Ph2028]

Following the speech, Farage was also asked about his view on abortion limits. He replied that he was pro-choice but that it was "utterly ludicrous" for abortion to be allowed up to 24 weeks, when a hospital would "move heaven and earth" to help a baby born at 22 weeks survive.

Aibu to think it may be a slippery slope to reducing the number of weeks until it is effectively banned...

Anyway it's a bit of a non issue on Nigel's part given nearly 94% of reported abortions happen before two and a half months of pregnancy.so very few abortions happen at 24 weeks.

Now i remember why I requested a tubal ligation when I was pregnant with first baby as I didn't want anymore in any circumstances. It was predictably denied so dh got a vasectomy instead.

Actually, the argument against the death penalty is way more complex than that.

Issues include:

1 The possibility that someone innocent might be executed (has happened)
2 The absolute knowledge that death penalty sentences are NEVER carried out consistently. The age, sex, race of both victim and perpetrator play a huge role in the liklihood of the death penalty being given. Ditto the perceived motive.
3 the lack of consistency applies equally to the legal system: the skill, personality, age, race, sex of the lawyers and judges and juries involved

Then there's also the fact that for many people the moral imperative that we don't murder sentient, self aware humans. I personally, am fine with the death penalty in theory but I get that a lot o fpeople aren't comfortale with it. But I will never support the death penalty because of the three points above.

They’re pro birth, not pro life then. Or anti-woman. Whichever way you want to spin it to be honest

As usual these threads are full of people who know nothing.

Abortion over 24 weeks is exceptionally rare and always involves a threat to the life of the mother or fetus. Once you have that 20 week scan where an issue is detected it will take months to confirm and no one is making that choice without being certain. It’s a terrifying horrific situation for any woman and anyone judging or thinking they have even a tiny right to express an opinion should get in the sea.

What about the "non-ill" babies of mothers who will be made seriously ill or even die by having to continue the pregnancy? How about rape victims, particularly children? It's certainly not murder on any count, given that you can only murder someone who is a legal person, and a foetus is not.

The reality is that the number of abortions that happen after 18/20 weeks is tiny, and the vast majority relate to babies with severe problems that have only just been detected. What actual evidence do you have that this is an issue which we need to fix?

It’s also important to remember that you can’t ban abortion. You can only ban safe abortion.

It’s his thoughts on the matter, he’s allowed them

Nobody's saying he isn't allowed to have thoughts on things, but he is the leader of a political party so clearly any views he expresses are relevant to that party's policy direction, and to voters.

Therefore they can, and should, be discussed and criticised and debated.

If Keir Starmer or Kemi Badenoch said 'You know, my personal view on abortion is that we should perform far more abortions than we currently do, and we should do them at any time in a pregnancy right up until the due date' I'm fairly sure you wouldn't be saying 'Well, he's allowed to hold that view, it's just his personal opinion'. You would be wondering about the potential influence of that view on party policy and you would probably be concerned that it might be the slippery slope to changes you're vehemently opposed to.

I’d keep that separate too and look at timing for non medical.

This.

If you think that you should have lower limits for "non-medical" abortion than what does that achieve? Do you think you then turn all these women into happy, capable mothers?

What you are actually advocating for is forcing women to give birth against their consent.

Can you imagine how horrific that is, and can you understand that laws like that don't actually stop abortions, they just stop legal and - crucially - safe abortions?

@OutandAboutMum1821 telling that you haven't given an answer.

Why is the current timing outside of that to you?

No it’s not murder, don’t be so ridiculous - yes it is - killing a human being that's capable of living alone is murder. And I'm referring to near 24 weeks clearly.

Is there any evidence whatsoever of women choosing to wait until 23 weeks to have a termination just for the hell of it? Or trying to get a termination later than that? - I don't know, but if that's the case, then there will be no problem if the limit drops to 20 weeks (or similar).

Before abortion was lawful women still had them and doctors performed them (for rich women who could afford it). Just not legally or officially. That will still happen if you ban abortions. It will just mean that those who can’t afford to pay will resort to unsafe methods to rid themselves of the pregnancy. It won’t mean an influx of healthy newborn babies ready to be adopted by infertile couples (a total fantasy that’s very out of touch with the realities of adoption). I've clearly stated that I support abortion. I made no mention of banning it at all. I've made no mention of adoption. I am fully aware of the horrific realities of some adoptions.

I sadly think given the state of women's rights in the US any discussion on abortion needs to be viewed with caution.

Relevance to the UK is....?

ETA Wrong post for comment. Apologies.

@jljlj the thing is though: "killing a human being that's capable of living alone is murder"

A pre-term foetus is not a human being that's capable of living alone.

The arguments on this are so circular:

No women is aborting a healthy baby after 24 weeks...
Ok then clarifying that in law won't impact anyone.
But women must be protected!!
From what?
Doing something no one is doing??

If we all agreed aborting healthy babies after 24 weeks was horrific then we could discuss where the line is drawn, is this the right cut off for healthy babies and what about babies and mothers with life threatening conditions post 24 weeks. I'm sure there would be broad consensus in the population on this with the no limits at all people and the no abortion at all people being the fringe.

I always think the adoption is worse than death arguments are deeply weird and stupid.

So a newborn about to be adopted would be better off being killed than adopted then? Or does living become preferable to adoption only at that point?

For all those in the "but foetal abnormalities" crowd, there is a Bill currently on its 2nd reading in parliament to include things like cleft lip, cleft palate and clubfoot as reasons for termination up to 40 weeks. I know people with cleft lip/palate who live normal, happy, productive lives. That is killing a baby because of a non-life limiting disfigurement.

Farage is right & the limit should be reduced to viability or lower. Most happen in the first 9 weeks anyway, and we should endeavour to reduce that number by being stricter with teaching young women & girls the meaning and value of sex for them and only to have sex with men they'd like to have kids with.

I remember our sex ed at school in the 2000s was a cartoon video of a couple running around a bedroom naked tickling each other. It was perverted and not at all educational, including being mixed-sex and not giving enough space to discuss the unequal risk of sex for both men and women. Boys watching pornography on the playground from 12/13.

Evidently more access to contraception hasn't reduced the number of unwanted pregnancies. Men nowadays get what would have been marriage "benefits" without the commitment or responsibility. All liberalism/lax abortion & sex attitudes have done is removed the burden of responsibility from men and placed it on to women.

Reading the case against the sexual revolution by Louise Perry & reactionary feminism by Mary Harrington really changed my mind on this issue, and I am youngish (28) and not religious.

Some babies do survive from 22-24 weeks. So I would consider it murder to terminate a foetus at that point. Excepting tfmr.

"living alone" is the bit I'm disputing.

they need extensive medical intervention.

they also need, you know, a parent to care for them.

So it’s murder to kill a healthy 22 week fetus but not one with Down’s syndrome? Why is that the case precisely?

Yep, the idea that the high rates of abortion are a huge win for women instead of a huge win for men is just blind insanity.

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being.

Legal abortion is not murder, no matter what you think. Using the word murder to describe legal abortion is just deliberately placing a term loaded with emotion and baggage on something which it should not be applied to.

What inanimate object?

She wasn't proud of her abortion, she was grateful that she had the right to choose whether to continue a pregnancy to term. This was in 2020 when the US thankfully avoided a second Trump term which would have meant rolling back abortion rights.

Obviously, Trump is now back and the Supreme Court struck down Roe V Wade so individual states have the right to limit abortion rights as they wish. This is bad news for women and Nigel is a Trump acolyte.

Thankfully, abortion has never been a hot-button issue in the UK like it is in the US. With Farage and Reform in the ascendant, that may very well change.