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.

Right. The mere choice of the woman to exercise her human right to bodily integrity.

The mere choice of the woman to exercise her right not to continue a pregnancy, give birth, raise a child, have her life (and possible health) irrevocably and substantially altered. The mere choice not to be someone's parent for the rest of your life.

Piffling stuff

aaah, there it is, the little "mere" which asserts that pregnancy and childbirth is really no big deal at all, insinuating that women decide not to go ahead with such things out of mere whimsy.

"the mere choice of the mother"
True colours, Larry, true colours.

SmashingTurnips I agree completely with the emphasis on PIV and contraception issues. I also think that there is a societal issues where women who are pregnant unexpectedly are unsupported. Pregnancy and children are seen as inconvenient, especially out of a relationship. There is still a stigma to single motherhood. Careers are curtailed by having children etc. If having children was of a higher status and more supported than it is now then abortion rates would probably reduce.

Typical to seize on one word rather than disputing the substance of an argument. And it really is "mere" compared to having potassium chloride injected into your unanaesthetised sentient heart.

And this thread is not about anti abortion, it is about a sensible limit on the term at which abortion is unavailable. It is a straw man argument to pur forward reasons for abortion. That is a different debate entirely. I think 95%, if not all posters, on this thread, are pro choice (or whatever you want to call it).

Nope "mere" is very indicative of your view of women, larry

larry it isn't the choice of the mother comapred to the life of the baby. The mother or government make the choice, but the choice is between the life, health and experience of the mother and her family with or without the continuing pregnancy and subsequent baby.

That choice isn't simply about the life of a baby and some idea of freedom to flip a coin. It's the life of a (probable) future baby and a whole host of real physical impacts on others, mainly the mother.

In what other circumstances do we legally require others to make a physical sacrifice for another?

Abigail,

Of course you know far more about my views on women than I do. Must be nice to have such good ESP. Of course, an alternative view might be that you have a load of inbuilt assumptions about what us menz think. Another one might be that you don't comprehend how adjectives work or comparatives. Your own grammar rather supports the latter hypothesis.

Emmeline,

That is a fair question. As I said in my earlier post, pregnancy is quite unique in that regard. There really is nothing quite like it (with the exception of conjoined twins, maybe).

Ultimately, however, the law imposes obligations on parents post birth and most would not argue against them. Is it unreasonable, on that basis, to extend it for 16-20 weeks pre birth?

As everyone agrees, late abortions are a tiny percentage of the total and it is a choice between two evils. I, and the vast majority of all people of both sexes, feel that a foetus becomes a baby with some rights at some point before it is actually born and the law is there to speak on behalf of the foetus who cannot speak for itself.

Larry, your views of women show through in your own words, dearie.

Another one might be that you don't comprehend how adjectives work or comparatives. Your own grammar rather supports the latter hypothesis.

Please don't be so patronising, larry.

Anyone else hear the sound of a barrel being scraped?

The government knows that late abortion is exceedingly rare. It knows that the vast vast majority of women want to have an abortion as quickly and humanely as possible.

There is no need to reduce the legal time limit.

If there were queues of women using 24 week abortions as a form of contraception, maybe a proposed reduction would make sense.

But there aren't.

(Larry do you understand how crass it is for a man to post something like this And it really is "mere" compared to having potassium chloride injected into your unanaesthetised sentient heart. ? Lucky you - you will never have to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy. We aren't all in such a position and your language is veering very close to that of the manipulative abortion = murder crowd.)

Ultimately, however, the law imposes obligations on parents post birth and most would not argue against them. Is it unreasonable, on that basis, to extend it for 16-20 weeks pre birth?

Yes, it is extremely unreasonable. Because post-birth there's a baby, an autonomous, if dependent, unit, able to breathe, eat, and excrete.

Pre-birth there's a foetus, and to live it requires the use of my body, including my digestive, respiratory, nervous and circulatory systems. And this use impedes and often damages, possibly irreparably my own use of these, my bodily systems and functions.

I get to say who uses my body and for what. No one else.

We don't extend the obligations. The obligations are completely different.

Post birth we do not require any physical sacrifice. If your baby needs your blood or some of your stem cells, or a kidney, you can refuse - because it is your body.

Pre-birth we do not require any digilence. A mother can go on rollercoaster, bungy jumping, get blind drunk, or work 20 hour days. A father can head to the hills. Only after birth do we consider neglect a criminal offence (and in some cases we removed the compulsion to provide under criminal law - only the traditionally female parenting role attracts criminal sanctions now).

The government does not make laws on abortion. It is left to a free vote where individual MPs vote according to their own conscience.

"Post birth we do not require any physical sacrifice. If your baby needs your blood or some of your stem cells, or a kidney, you can refuse - because it is your body"

But, how many parents would? And, could you really refuse to donate blood to your baby if it were the only way to keep it alive? Most people would, at the least, find that decision morally repugnant. And that applies equally to a father or a mother.

I'm afraid I could not debate with Larry after he used the terms "annoyance and inconvenience" in relation to an unplanned pregnancy. One could debate the merits of his case rationally if one thought he had the slightest comprehension of what it is like to find yourself pregnant when it was totally unplanned.

The fact that he simply does not have the slightest comprehension of how a woman might feel in these circumstances, or the enormous effects of this life-changing situation, means he cannot fairly weigh one set of circumstances (the rights of the mother) against another (the rights of the foetus).

I should have said I take his point that he is not anti-choice earlier in pregnancy, but the negative effects of an unwanted pregnancy do not get better simply because a woman is two or three weeks "more" pregnant than she was before.

But, how many parents would? And, could you really refuse to donate blood to your baby if it were the only way to keep it alive? Most people would, at the least, find that decision morally repugnant. And that applies equally to a father or a mother.

This kind of 'but is it moral?' question comes across as intellectual masturbation. "most people would find that decision morally repugnant'' is not a good enough reason to legislate mandatory blood or tissue donation and thereby remove bodily autonomy. You claim to be discussing the legal aspects of this but you are really talking about feelings. Which is a bad way to make laws.

Blackcurrants,

On what basis do you think laws are made, other than what you would term "intellectual masturbation"? When a change in the law is being discussed, by definition you are discussing whether the change is right or wrong. How else do you do this without reference to morals?

"I should have said I take his point that he is not anti-choice earlier in pregnancy, but the negative effects of an unwanted pregnancy do not get better simply because a woman is two or three weeks "more" pregnant than she was before. "

Neither do the negative effects change post birth. What changes is what you are comparing the negative effects with.

I would have no objection with women having the absolute right to give birth when they want in order to maintain their "bodily integrity". On the other hand, I do not believe that they should have the right to terminate the life of a foetus/baby capable of independent life. Why should they? If the baby is capable of living autonomously (with medical support, of course) why should it not have the chance? That would put a woman in exactly the same position as all men are in now. They have no say on whether their DNA ends up becoming a baby or not.

Emmeline I am really enjoying your posts, thank you.

I think laws are made in all kinds of ways, lazza, good and bad - but when they're made by people who purse their lips and judge other's bad morals, they are invariably bad for women.

I repeat: talking about the baby's rights or the parents' responsibilities post-birth is NOT a useful way to think about whether or not a foetus' putative rights should overturn a pregnant woman's rights to bodily autonomy.

They are two different situations, and conflating the two is like saying "Of course I'm opposed to gay marriage! if we let men marry men, who's to stop them marrying ducks?!" - by which I mean - it's a strawman, and it's silly.

Blackcurrants,

A baby 8 months post conception is the same person whether inside or outside the womb. To ascribe it two completely different sets of rights depending on whether it has been born yet is completely arbitrary and, in your words, "silly".

Gay marriage vs humans marrying animals is the straw man here. I am comparing apples with apples, not with bananas or chimpanzees.

Also, to pretend this is the patriarchy vs women is completely wrong. The vast majority of women would not be in favour of abortion on demand until birth. This debate is about a small minority of women (and maybe men too) vs the majority of the population, regardless of sex.

"A baby 8 months post conception is the same person whether inside or outside the womb."

Nope.

Nice work negating the work of pregnancy, there, and granting personhood to foetuses. That makes the rest of your stance coherent.

But nope, it's just not true, and asserting it as if it were true doesn't make it so.