Please can we talk about what "pro choice" means?

[BertrandRussell]

Some threads on here, and coincidentally, a couple of real life conversations prompted by a recent television programme, have made me think that there is an attempt to erode the meaning of the term. For me, pro choice means that a woman should be able to have an abortion within the law because she wants to. Her reasons are immaterial.

gone My point was assuming the abortion laws or delivery of them were made much more restrictive (as in the past here), when I said 'changed'. Should have been clearer.

Auser- how about you tell me what you're getting at? You've been so foul to me over the last couple of days I have no desire to buy any pigs in pokes......

Abortion is not legal in England wales and Scotland.

Technically.

It's not.

So, your thread is based on a fallacy.

There are limited exceptions provided under the Abortion Act 1967 but abortion itself remains illegal.

There is it, and never has been, a choice to have an abortion for any reason.

And if the abortion laws are made much less restrictive, without tackling the underlying social problems which lead women to abort, then more women might feel under pressure to abort or feel expected to abort (either by society or by the individuals involved in their lives).

Bertrand, you've missed the point of the post. It's not about what you think but about what most people think, and about how that distinction is actually enshrined in law.

Meanwhile on sex selection, Morris Zapp wrote: Until massive progress has been made to that end, if individual women feel that their own lives would be shit if they had a girl baby, I have to hold my nose and accept their absolute right to terminate.

It's one thing to conceive of women's lives being made intolerable because they are carrying g a girl, and thus to see abortion as justified - in some other country where such attitudes to girls are rife.

But you'd also have to accept that it would be perfectly ok for a woman to terminate a female foetus, in a country where there is no prejudice against girl babies (such as the UK) simply because she didn't want a girl. In what way is that not wrong?

"And if the abortion laws are made much less restrictive, without tackling the underlying social problems which lead women to abort, then more women may feel under pressure to abort or feel expected to abort..."

I thought this whole "most women regret abortion and have mental health consequences following because it wasn't really a free choice" sort of argument was debunked years ago. Abortion is staggeringly common, at one stage in my life all of my close friends had had at least one. The usual reason - if there has to be one, and there doesn't - was that those women didn't want to have a baby at that time because they were busy doing other stuff. Not that they really wanted to have a baby but society/friends/partners etc were putting them under pressure.

This stance that women can only have abortions for reasons that other people find acceptable - in the name of "society" - isn't acceptable to me.

I see no contradiction in being entirely pro-choice AND working for a global society that values disabled people and girls more. Because a different society is what will reduce terminations of girls and disabled people, not taking away a woman's right to choose.

Maybe not in principle. In practice, educated British women are far more concerned with semantics than the chap forcing his wife to get pregnant repeatedly on the other side of the world.

In practice, while we're putting off putting laws in place that might protect women from such treatment on the grounds that it constitutes a theoretical loss of bodily autonomy, a generation of girls have been aborted.

But yes it's far preferable to kill them earlier, the only options being leaving babies on the side of the road to die or allowing their mothers to be forced to go through gender selective terminations.

Whatever the question is, the answer should never be 'better to kill them earlier than later' when we are talking about the life of a healthy child.

niminy - I think it is wrong, and in fact there are a few NHS trusts that don't tell expectant mothers the sex of their baby due to concerns that girls are more likely to be aborted.

The point about babies who die in utero as a result of actions taken without the mother's consent is interesting. The Omagh bombing in 1998 killed 29 people, but one of the victims was seven months pregnant with twins. Some reports record 31 victims as a result - I'm pretty certain that her family members feel that they lost three people that day.

nolonger but there is evidence that women have experienced pressure to abort in the case of feotal diagnosis of disability, specifically Down's. Also that women in other countries feel pressurised to abort female foetuses.

Denying this pressure exists does not help the pro-choice argument. Pressurising a woman over her choices in pregnancy erodes choice. It also plays straight into the hands of campaigners who want to make abortion laws or delivery of them, more restrictive, in order to protect the women who would want to continue with their pregnancy under any circumstances.

olenna Good point re Omagh. I would say that anyone who thought thirty one people weren't lost is sadly mistaken.

The unborn child has a value of their own that is not conferred upon them by their mother. Society pretends that this isn't the case when it aborts 'foetuses' but consoles women on miscarrying 'babies'. In fact, there is no grounds for such a theory. A person is a person or they aren't. Their location doesn't change that.

Denying this pressure exists does not help the pro-choice argument.

Nor, more importantly, does it help the pro-women argument which is surely what we should all be focusing on?

I get the impression that feminists have a little piece of paper with the holy grail 'principles of feminism' on it that they are certain will one day result in a utopian society and screw whatever happens to women as a result of those principles in the period between then and now.

I think people need to keep their prying eyes away from the contents of other women's uteruses.

That would serve women best.

Does anyone know why abortion is so very common in the UK mainland, given the improvement in contraception over the years? it's not as if anyone is laissez-faire about abortion, because it must surely range from at best, an inconvenience, to at worst, a traumatic experience.

Prior to abortion being accessible in law, we all know there were backstreet abortions. And there was little in the way of reliable contraception. Does anyone know whether there were as many unwanted pregnancies back then (whether they ended in backstreet abortion or having the baby)? If not, I wonder why not?

I wonder whether contraception sometimes gives us a false sense of security given that it isn't 100%? Or does anyone think there are other reasons that unwanted pregnancies are still so common?

nolonger really? I would argue yes, for individual worn. They should be able to make choices within the law, without the need to justify their decision to anyone. However society does need to provide services which cater for these women's needs. Serious questions need to be asked concerning why women are feeling the need to abort because, the way society is means, their life would be intolerable if they were to have a child.

Women not worn. Typo.

I am pro choice and think that a woman should be able to abort a fetus for any reason at any time.
In terms of sex selection, i dont agree with women aborting to pick a particular sex but they should be able to do so because i find it morallay disgusting that any woman should be forced to have a baby she doesnt want even if i dont agree with the reasoning behind her not wanting it and its not what i would do myself.
Id be very unlikely to ever have an abortion myself as i was raised catholic and even tho i am not practising i think the guilt i would feel due to being raised catholic would make me completely unable to deal with having had an abortion.
However i would certainly have any test offered to me to see what medical conditions my child may be born with, just so that i could prepare financially and emotionally.

So, if you believe a woman should be able to have an abortion up to 24 weeks with restrictions- what restrictions would you impose?

No contraception is 100% effective.

Lots of abortions are a result of contraception failure.

RE people being pressured into aborting fetuses. I dont think you combat that by making abortion illegal for certain reasons. That doesnt take away the problem it just adds to it. Those issues why women are being pressured into abortions need to be tackled in society with information and support.

Also id like to add that my son was a result of a condom splitting AND failure of the morning after pill, which i took literally the morning after and was assured would work.
I really learnt that no contraception is totally safe!!

And what bout women who are pressurized into not having abortions?

Bertrand the women pressurised into not having abortions still leads to question the value placed on women in society. The respect that is given to the decisions they make and their right of autonomy over what will happen to their own bodies.

I think childbirth is still a dangerous and hugely traumatic process for women. Much is still done to women without much consent involved. There is still not enough priority placed on making childbirth or motherhood a better experience IMHO. Mothers are not respected enough in our society.

Contraceptive failure rates are based on pregnancy rates over a year. So condoms are 95% effective, that means 1 in 20 women using them for a year will end up pregnant.
45% of all pregnancies are unplanned.
It gets my goat when I read about how there's no excuse for a woman to get pregnant if she didn't want to because it's bollocks.

That's what I thought re contraception failure being behind a lot of abortions. My DF became pregnant the first time she had sex, despite using a condom and a MAP just in case. I was supporting her through an abortion not long after.

If so many unwanted pregnancies are a result of contraception failures, does anyone think it would be worth women bring taught about their body's fertility indicators at school? To use in conjunction with contraception? I mean things like changes in cervical mucus. So that women could also know when their fertility is peak during the month, in addition to using contraception?

Sorry for the derail, I just see it as part of the puzzle I think.

Felas - I agree. Nothing is 100%.