To be saddened that anyone would want to take away a woman’s right to safe abortion?

[Balayagequeen]

It makes me sad and angry that there are so many people who believe that a woman’s right to a termination is up for debate/political football.

It’s always privileged men too.

No woman should be forced to continue with a pregnancy that she doesn’t want.

An abortion is a very safe, simple procedure, it’s a personal and private choice, it’s discreet, no one is ramming it down anyone else’s throat or trying to persuade others to do it. The vast majority of the time is done very early on in the pregnancy. Evidence shows that there are no long term negative physical or mental effects on the woman.

As someone who works for children’s services, there are already far too many children in the care system and they can end up deeply traumatised, and having poor outcomes in life, adoptions often don’t work out and even when they do can be extremely traumatic for both the mother and child. That is not to take away from all of the wonderful adoptive parents and foster carers, but please let’s not romanticise it.

Most adoptions are because the birth parents are unable to care for the child, not because the mother willingly gave the baby up. Therefore to force a woman to give birth would potentially be the worse option for the woman, the child and any existing siblings. It isn’t a fairytale ending where a woman willingly gives up her baby to a loving couple to live happily ever after.

There are babies conceived in poverty, domestic abuse, rape, teenage pregnancies, older age pregnancies. These women should not be forced to give birth, it is not the better option for anyone.

If abortion was ever restricted in the western world then I have no doubt that it would result in unsafe illegal abortions, risking the woman’s life.

Women take all the risk with pregnancy and childbirth. They take an enormous toll on a woman body, her mental health, her life outcomes. We are not living in the dark ages, women deserve the choice.

What right does any privileged male who has probably never experienced any of these things and has probably done very little child rearing, who can never conceive or give birth, have to try to restrict a women’s access to abortion?

Are they themselves going to care for the babies born? Or will they expect that someone else will do it?

@LayerCakeOfStrangers i referred to my profession simply to point out there are shades of grey in the law and that’s a large part of my job to understand, interpret and apply case law and legislation to the fact of the matter I’m working on. I do not specialise in criminal law, or abortion law so I don’t profess to be an expert in it but that doesn’t mean I don’t understand the mechanisms of the law as a construct. Nonetheless my assertion that the law has shades of grey by its very nature is entirely accurate.

To acknowledge it’s not black and white would be to acknowledge there’s varying shades of grey.

Well actually it would have to be black and white in cases of rape.

How would a woman access an abortion in a country that only allows it if she’s been raped?

Would her word be enough? Would a conviction be needed? A police report? In policy and law, how would this work?

Where I stand, and what my view on the law should be is complicated. One thing I'd definitely like in law (which will never ever happen in the UK) is that abortion should not be allowed if the sexual act was made of free will with no coercion or force (which I believe is true in most current abortion cases) and when there's no medical risks to the mother or to the child. That's one firm core of my belief.

well rape is hardly a clear cut crime. That’s the grey. My goodness you’d argue with yourself in a phone box.

Would her word be enough? Would a conviction be needed? A police report? In policy and law, how would this work?

This is “the grey” we’re getting there!

You can't have grey areas like that though. It must be black and white, or it's entirely unenforceable or almost entirely inaccessible.

OK so you’d have a law where a woman could only access abortion if she was raped, correct?

How does that work on a practical level?

As in, when she accesses an abortion because she was raped, how does she prove it? Or is her word enough?

Rape is hardly a clear cut crime?! Sorry what?!

Are you claiming rape doesn’t have a clear definition?

24 weeks is still the cut off due to natural viability regardless of medical advances. Yes, babies can and do survive before that date, but only 4% will have no issues or disabilities.

I am pro choice in all things, abortion, euthanasia, declining or accepting medical treatments. I am not religious at all, I believe in the human right of self determination.

Except there wouldn’t be a grey area, there’d be a clear policy on what allows a woman to access an abortion. What do you Think that would look like? Or would Parliament just shrug and say they don’t know how to to ascertain if a woman has been raped?

I find it comical that people are professing laws couldn’t be made because “grey area”
Even more comical these people claim to be in a legal profession

That is sad, she should of told him. 😧. Im for right to choose but not at 5 months.

Who said that?

So we punish women for having sex by forcing them to have a baby they do not want. The men walk away with no consequences. And how do you think those unwanted children are going to live, with a parent who doesn't want them?

Then there's the strong possibility of birth injuries as punishment.

Your beliefs are lovely. You really support women.

You said creating a law around rape for abortions would constitute grey areas

How so?

Dont you trust lawmakers to get the terms right?

How do you think that law would look? As a legal professional?

I said the law has grey areas. You provided a prime example of an area of grey and I pointed that out. The rest of your comment is entirely your own fabrications.

Honestly personally no. I think it should only be if there's a medical issue. I still think even in the horrific cases of rape, the baby's life is still intrinsically valuable and shouldn't be punished for the horrific disgusting crimes of the man. The man should be punished. I'm very open to be challenged on this, I know it's a continuous issue.

That's why my previous message focused on the vast majority of cases where the act itself was consensual and I believe both parties should accept responsibility for what happened and the fact that they inadvertently have brought new life into the world.

Punishments and natural consequences are not the same. Pregnancy is a natural consequence, birth is a natural consequence of pregnancy.

I think we as a society should support women through this. I also think we should support these children to have a good and happy life instead of just terminating them because they "might have a bad life". This is what I believe. I came to this after thinking about both sides of the argument and thinking that human life has value. I think children are blessings and should be cherished.

Is there a link to this thread?

Three women in my family would be dead without abortion

Another and unwanted baby could push the relationship into divorce, loss of the family home, homelessness, living below the poverty line.
I’ll also support a women’s right to choose - regardless of the circumstances of conception

How would you support women and children through this? What exactly would that look like? Who would provide this support? How would it be funded? How would we determine who gets it?

Well actually I didn’t provide an example of a grey area because a law that states only raped women could get pregnant would have clear terms and definitions.

Im simply asking what people think those SHOULD be. That’s not an example of a grey area that me trying to gauge how people think it should work on a practical level