Abortion to be reduced to 20 weeks

[avenueone]

There is a story on the front page of the Telegraph tomorrow (paper review) saying that in brief due to babies? being able to survive from a younger age it should be reduced.
I personally don't think this is an argument as I doubt they could survive without medical intervention. I feel it is just another attempt to undermine a woman's right to choose what we do with out bodies. Sorry no link but there should be one around tomorrow and I will try and post it.

We have concepts such as maternity leave to allow a woman to get around the physical disadvantage of having children and to make her an equal player in the workplace.

You are kidding right? About women being 'equal players' in the workplace. Are you actually aware of how many women end up in relatively low-paid part-time jobs because of childcare issues, despite their qualifications, skills and experience?
Are you aware of the earnings gap that still exists between men and women, which is partly due to women taking career breaks to look after children?

Sorry that was off-topic, but seeing as you brought it up, larry, I felt compelled to call you on it.

Twofingers,

A lot of that is historical. In any event, we attempt to legislate around this issue, with greater or lesser success.

I do think that we should take one of two approaches, though. Either we are basically animals and we accept that the female and males have different roles or we say that we are more evolved than that and, although we have different bodies, we try to work around the advantages and limitations of both sexes to give them more choices and more equal roles across the board. What I find surprising is how few on this board will accept that, and most feel that a woman should accrue all the rights due to her physical body but accept none of the limitations.

What are the limitations you refer to, larry?

"I think the physical risk of early abortion really is minimal"

Minimal it may be, but it is still more physical risk than a man would face.

"I believe some extreme feminists argue that a mother should have a right to infanticide (to get around what I have argued above)."

I have never seen that argued

Thanks blackcurrants I have just got it for Kindle!

Men shouldn't have any say in what a woman does with her body whether it is having an abortion, how she gives birth, whether she breastfeeds. That is controlling and quite frankly, not very nice. You can give us your opinion and...well...we can ignore it. Because women are adults and human beings and can make up our own minds.

However, the state has always felt it necessary to control women's bodies from abortion to birth to feeding babies to raping us. Some of that is now historical....some of it not so much. As I said earleir, this is all about control and larry's comments are showing that perfectly.

What I find surprising is how few on this board will accept that, and most feel that a woman should accrue all the rights due to her physical body but accept none of the limitations

Where am I accruing rights Larry? All I want are the same rights as you to control my own body.

Pregnancy, by the way, is a huge imposition on a woman's life. You might want it and love it but it is also a physical ordeal and by the way, carries considerable risks and costs which span the entire range from damage to the health of your teeth to catastrophic damage and death. No one can take that away from pregnancy - we do try to mitigate risks through medical intervention but pregnancy will never be risk-free. So men and women are very far from being on an equal playing field when it comes to bringing the next generation into the world, physically, let alone socially, politically and economically. Your comments make you look as though you think pregnancy is something you decide to do that is cost free. Sadly not.

My fundamental view on this is that biology has designed human beings so that life can only enter the world through a woman's body. Fine. We can't do much about that. But I must insist on the right to decide whether to be a vessel or not. If I choose to be a vessel then fine - I submit to it. But I will not have that choice taken away from me.

Once the baby is here then it's a whole different rights story. But all the while it needs to use my body as a vessel to get here, the baby has no rights. Unless I choose to give it rights by giving up my own.

Imagine a situation where a woman giving birth and the baby were both in danger and only one of them could be saved. Only the mother has the right to say "Save the baby - I sacrifice myself to the baby". No one else in the delivery room has the right to say "Sacrifice her - the baby wins". Indeed I think most doctors would, if push came to shove, agree that primacy belongs to the woman and I suspect even pro life drs would find it difficult to conclude differently.

"Only the mother has the right to say "Save the baby - I sacrifice myself to the baby"

Does the mother have that right?

you are right athing. I don't know whether a dr could accept that instruction from a woman under his or her care.

I think the point is clear. When push comes to shove the woman has primacy.

What I find surprising is how few on this board will accept that, and most feel that a woman should accrue all the rights due to her physical body but accept none of the limitations

"The most notable fact our culture imprints on women is the sense of our limits. The most important thing one woman can do for another is to illuminate and expand her sense of actual possibilities." Adrienne Rich

Someone (conveniently) just posted that on their FB wall.

The only reason women are "limited" by pregnancy is because society deems it so. From whether we can choose to continue with the pregnancy, to how we behave during pregnancy, to how we give birth, to how we are perceived, to our employment opportunities, to our worth in society.

"Imagine a situation where a woman giving birth and the baby were both in danger and only one of them could be saved. Only the mother has the right to say "Save the baby - I sacrifice myself to the baby". No one else in the delivery room has the right to say "Sacrifice her - the baby wins". Indeed I think most doctors would, if push came to shove, agree that primacy belongs to the woman and I suspect even pro life drs would find it difficult to conclude differently. "

I don't think anyone could possibly disagree with that statement but I am not sure what you are arguing by stating it? In every civilised country, the woman enjoys primacy where it comes to risk of death.

"Where am I accruing rights Larry? All I want are the same rights as you to control my own body."

If you believe in genetics, the single biggest imperative of every animal, including humans, is to propagate their DNA. If a man gets a woman pregnant, the woman has the right to decide the destiny of both sets of DNA. That is a big right.

Larry are you discussing a situation where a man and a woman have accidentally conceived and the man would prefer an abortion to take place, or where a man and woman have planned to conceive and the man would prefer no abortion.

If a woman chooses not to continue a pregnancy and the man doesn't want to continue the relationship without a reasonable chance of propagation, he can choose to seek a new relationship.

Doctrine,

Of course he can. But the woman has additional choices to the man. Surely, that is clear? I am not saying it is wrong either. I think it is a natural consequence of carrying the child. I just think these additional choices should be recognised as a woman's privilege to weigh against the men's privileges so often spoken of on these boards.

"In every civilised country, the woman enjoys primacy where it comes to risk of death."

So the Republic of Ireland is not civilised?

I think that's fair :o

The nature of biology and medical science mean that women have an extra chance to make a choice about pregnancy, yes.

As a counter example of where biology doesn't "privilege" women - a woman cannot forcibly impregnate someone else.

Doctrine,

There are plenty of counter examples, including having to endure pregnancy and birth. I am not arguing that. However women do have that one important privilege on their side.

Coming back to the abortion argument and whether men should have a say, I think that, if someone said that only the parents of a child should have a say on whether to kill it, most people would regard that as a ridiculous position. After all, a young baby can hardly argue its own case for a right to life. For me, after a certain point, a foetus is a human being and all people have a right to argue on its behalf for its right to life.

Clearly this does impugn the "bodily integrity" of a woman. On the other hand, having potassium chloride injected into its heart clearly impugns the bodily integrity of the foetus/baby. The idea of forcing a woman to stay pregnant is distasteful and I can see why people feel that it is controlling. On the other hand, for me, it is the least bad option in cases where a healthy foetus has made it beyond a certain point. None of us have complete bodily integrity. There was a famous case (Regina vs Brown) concerning gay sado masochist men who were consenting to some fairly extreme S&M (think nailing scrotums to a board). They were found guilty of assault, despite all the men consenting. Similarly I cannot demand a surgeon do gender reassignment surgery on me without passing certain stringent conditions.

Larry Your examples of how bodily integrity is denied to others are not really equivalent. The charges in the Spanner case were the general assault laws designed to ensure everyone's safety. Their use in the Spanner case was, and remains, controversial and has not resulted in lots of similar cases despite the mainstreaming of BDSM. More importanty from a bodily integrity perspective, though the Spanner case confirmed that consent is not a get out for the actions of others, it does not criminalize the person who consents. A person who assaults themsleves is not guilty - this is technically bodily integrity (though admittedly an empty right in many circumstances).

In terms of demanding a surgeon perform gender reassignment surgery: People cannot demand a surgeon perform any particular surgery - one person's bodily integrity does not create a right to command others. You are free to attempt gender reassignment surgery on yourself without being criminalized (please dont though!). Also, the law does not specify stringent conditions you must meet for gender reassignment, the surgeon's defence against assault is that you consent and it is medically sound for them to perform the surgery. Conditions are those the surgeon takes to make sure she does not fall foul of it being medically sound.

However, women who choose to have an abortion outside of the current provision in this country are themselves guilty of a crime for doing as they please to their own body. The law specifically calls out abortion as an act that women may not choose even if they do it themsleves. Regardless of the other aspects - the lack of bodily integrity is technically down to the woman being criminalized by the act. Seperately, HCPs who assist, who would normally be protected by the same legal framework that protects them from performing any surgery or medical procedure on a consenting adult, are specifically criminalized for this one procedure. There isn't another medical procedure they are criminalized for despite it being in the best interests of the patient.

There do seem to be some interesting anomalies there Emmeline - thanks for your post.

I agree that Emmeline makes some good points. Pregnancy, though, is unique really. The only other relationship where one person entirely depends on another's body is conjoined twins.

Ultimately, the relationship between a mother and a growing foetus is unique and one's attitude to abortion is a matter of one's personal beliefs and morality. Laws are there to represent the weak and having some protection for a foetus beyond a certain point seems sensible to the majority of the population (and there is no strong gender split on this, as far as I know).

Actually larry, given that a third of women in the UK have an abortion at some time in their lives, and given that the majority of the UK population are in favour of a woman's right to choose, your assertion that the majority of the population accept your particular view is a bit odd.

Slug,

Why do you perpetuate deliberately misstating my view? It is a really sad tactic within a discussion. For the 3rd time, I will reiterate that I am pro abortion on demand up to a certain point within a pregnancy. Beyond that point, I think that the rights of the foetus override that of the mere choice of the mother, although I do believe in exceptions to this rule too. I would like to see that point at somewhere between 18 and 24 weeks.

I suspect that even if women were allowed to legislate on this issue, with zero input from us menz, you would get pretty much that outcome.

I think until society addresses cultural emphasis on PIV, and the vastly different outcomes for women and men when contraception fails or is not used, it is misogynistic to erode abortion rights for women.

We also need to examine contraception itself as it is not unproblematic.

larry
"The mere choice of the mother" ???

Twofingers,

The adjective qualifies the word "choice" and not "mother" and is used to compare the CHOICE of the mother with the LIFE of the foetus/baby who, at the age I have specified, is certainly, in some senses, sentient. Most people would say choice is mere compared to life or death. Most women, as well.