Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Abortion to be reduced to 20 weeks

505 replies

avenueone · 02/10/2012 22:51

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.

OP posts:
larrygrylls · 15/10/2012 16:04

"I don't think we're going to persuade lazza, however, that women are really people. I've certainly given up."

Lazy dog-whistle argument. Do you think the majority of women who are anti late abortion do not believe themselves to be people? Or do they just need re-educating?

blackcurrants · 15/10/2012 16:06

Not going to playact your baddie feminist brainwasher, Larry, sorry.

Having bodily autonomy is a binary state: you either have it, or you don't. People who want to erode women's rights to bodily autonomy do not think they deserve full rights as people.

SmashingTurnips · 15/10/2012 16:13

Laws are for the tiny minority of people who decide to act against societal norms.

I think this is way too simplistic.

Laws exist for all manner of reasons and they are both subject to cultural influence and able to exert cultural influence.

larrygrylls · 15/10/2012 16:14

Blackcurrants,

You really are missing the point. The point is whether you regard the foetus, at any point up until birth, as human. I do. If you don't, I can entirely see your perspective. However, if you do, then it follows it is not just the rights of the woman which need to be considered, but that of the foetus as well and, at some level, it is a trade off. Every single human being's rights are curtailed when they infringe that of another human being. There is nothing magical about bodily autonomy versus any other human right. You have a right to free speech but not if it causes hate crime. Your rights have been infringed. It does not make you a non human.

I can respect those who genuinely don't believe a foetus is a human up until the moment of birth. I can see that their position is at least logically consistent. To believe that the foetus is human yet has zero rights is trying to make zero equal to one.

Ultimately, as I have said, society needs to take a stance and legislate on this, or not. I am confident enough in womankind to believe that the law would be absolutely no different if all males were excluded from the debate.

Francagoestohollywood · 15/10/2012 16:16

I absolutely don't agree with reducing the limit of abortion to 20 weeks.

The fact that there are babies able to survive (with vast medical intervention) at 23 weeks has absolutely nothing to do with the possibility of having an abortion at this stage of pregnancy.

The majority of abortion at this stage happen because of the diagnosis of serious health conditions, only the mother has the right to decide what to do.

drjohnsonscat · 15/10/2012 16:21

. Once a woman is pregnant she cannot just decide not to become pregnant.

Ummm, knitting needles mean anything to you Larry? Women who do not want to be pregnant will go to extraordinary lengths and put their lives at risk not to be pregnant, if they have to. Or we can ask drs (very nicely) to assist.

larrygrylls · 15/10/2012 16:21

"Laws are for the tiny minority of people who decide to act against societal norms.

I think this is way too simplistic.

Laws exist for all manner of reasons and they are both subject to cultural influence and able to exert cultural influence. "

True, but that is the justification for them.

I don't think anyone would argue against having laws in order to have faith in people's decency and common sense.

drjohnsonscat · 15/10/2012 16:25

Your point about curtailment of rights is true Larry. But what you miss is whether you as an individual has any say over your choice to restrict your rights by virtue of your actions.

So this is true:
You have a right to free speech but not if it causes hate crime. Your rights have been infringed. It does not make you a non human

But not relevant. In your example, you are choosing to exploit free speech in order to indulge in hate crime. Women who do not want to be pregnant did not choose to be pregnant but they find themselves having their rights curtailed anyway. Rights that can be curtailed without your say so are not rights.

FrothyDragon · 15/10/2012 16:28

Don't be silly. Knitting needled mean nothing to Larry, a man who will never know the reality of dealing with a pregnancy first hand. (Your wife having been pregnant doesn't count here, Lazza.)

Anyone else notice the irony that most of those on the pro-life side of the argument tend to churn out victim blaming at some point as well? It's all that autonomy thing, innit?

larrygrylls · 15/10/2012 16:32

Frothy,

I am bowing out here. I am happy to leave it to the women. The problem is that the majority of women with plenty of experience of pregnancy and abortions themselves are overwhelmingly against the legalisation of late abortion (which, again, to repeat as nauseam, is my stance).

You will just have to accept that the majority of women don't agree with you. Of course, you probably believe that 90% of women are willing handmaidens to the patriarchy (which, of course, is not condescending or anti woman).

drjohnsonscat · 15/10/2012 16:33

I agree that the majority don't want late abortion and the majority should absolutely not have one. They would not like it.

blackcurrants · 15/10/2012 16:34

Yep, definitely no mandatory late term abortions. I'm 100% against anyone having to have an abortion they don't want. With you there.

FrothyDragon · 15/10/2012 16:38

I wouldn't like a late abortion. I probably wouldn't have one. But I don't want to stop anyone else who needs a late abortion.

I mean, hell... I probably wouldn't want an abortion. But I wouldn't want to stop another woman choosing what to do with her body.

Christ. Anyone would think the pro-choicers were forcing abortions on women....

slug · 15/10/2012 16:44

The problem is that the majority of women with plenty of experience of pregnancy and abortions themselves are overwhelmingly against the legalisation of late abortion

FrothyDragon · 15/10/2012 16:48

Slug, please don't question the men on the thread. They have so much experience, doncha know? Grin

JugglingWithPossibilities · 15/10/2012 16:58

Did anyone else notice "which, again, to repeat as nauseam, is my stance" from Larry ? Grin

It's not so much what he says I disagree with, more the way he says it. Wasn't it him who said "the mere choice" of the woman ? Hmm

blackcurrants · 15/10/2012 17:01

and that pregnancy and childbirth were just an 'annoyance and inconvenience' - that was one of my highlights.

FrothyDragon · 15/10/2012 17:13

An annoyance and an inconvenience.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!

Yeah, no other risks there. Not like my ex's ex-wife actually stopped breathing jut after her second child was delivered. Just a slight inconvenience, mind.

EmBOOsa · 15/10/2012 17:28

I like the repeated use of the word "majority", it's an interesting use of word when there are no stats backing it up.

I think what larry meant to write was, "what I think the majority want". Unless of course I've missed the bit where larry was appointed spokesperson for almost everyone.

solidgoldbrass · 15/10/2012 18:13

Men are, of course, entitled to have opinions on abortion, and to air those opinions. But their opinions are not actually relevant and should carry no weight and certainly have no legal standing. Because abortion is no business of men's.

JugglingWithPossibilities · 15/10/2012 18:28

Yes, it's interesting sgb - my partner (DH) has always been quite anti-abortion in his views. But having read these threads over the last week or so I now recognise that though I've never had to consider terminating a pregnancy myself I don't need to feel that I share his views - I now feel that I can see things from the point of view of women who have experienced a different life path than I have myself.

lambethlil · 15/10/2012 18:34

Regardless of my opinion on this
Abortion to be reduced to 20 weeks
is not the case. One Conservative MP said this is what he wanted. It's not government policy, it's not the law, it's not going to be law.

voldemortspinkteddy · 15/10/2012 23:07

Personally, I think they're completely right to do it. And I think you're being ridiculous and petty to say that they are doing it to undermine a womans right to do what she likes with her body. Honestly, excluding cases of rape and when the mothers life is at risk, i think it's very selfish to have an abortion "because it's your body" What about the babys body? YOU made the mistake of having sex with a man unprotected, without suitable contraception and so YOU should deal with the consequences, not your baby. There is allways adoption. Personally I feel that abortion should be illegal unless theres risk involved, or the babys handicapped or the mother has been raped.

TheDoctrineOfSnatch · 15/10/2012 23:15

Pinkteddy, they are not "going to do it" - this is Maria Miller's opinion.

What's the logical difference between the "baby's body" if conceived via rape vs if conceived after contraceptive accident, please?

grimbletart · 16/10/2012 00:07

Doctrine, there isn't, obviously, but it's the way anti-choice proponents try to rationalise their views. A baby is only a baby in certain circumstances, so when it's contraception failure or unprotected sex it's a baby but when it's rape or handicapped or there's "risk" it's not a baby, or if it is it doesn't deserve the same protection as an "innocent" baby.

They see birth and adoption as a punishment for bad women who have unprotected sex or whose contraception failed. But they can't square their conscience with punishing a woman whose been raped, or conceived a disabled baby or where there is "risk" (whatever that means) because that is not the woman's "fault".

The seem not to be able to grasp that the baby is 100% innocent in all circumstances, so you are either pro-choice or you are not. Being pro-choice does of course mean that you can decide not to have an abortion when you have an unplanned pregnancy as many women do.

(Waits for a follow-up explanation that it is a case of the lesser of two evils.....it's not a black and white situation...etc.)