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.

"Serious questions need to be asked concerning why women are feeling the need to abort because, the way society is, having a baby would be intolerable to them".

Again, I think you're overstating the position of the few. Most women terminate because, at that time, they don't want to have a baby. They may never want to have a child. The default position for women is not that they would have all the babies in the world if they could.

Personally, I don't consider the delivering of the medical complications of DS by HCPs as an "unbalanced" view though. I'm not sure how you can say, "Your child with DS, as an adult, will almost definitely have dementia, with cognitive decline potentially starting from 35 years" and make it sound like a positive thing. You can't promise women that a disabled child may enrich their lives, in case it doesn't.

Unless you're personally going to take the baby born from an unwanted pregnancy and bring it up yourself then you have no right to an opinion about what other women do with the contents of their own uterus. A fetus is not the property of "society".

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?

No unless you are suggesting abstention at that time? Unlikely to happen I think

It does with me - despite having a mirena coil, I shit myself in case I ever got pregnant again, even though I'm merrily tootling through early menopause

I wondered whether people would think that it would give women more power over their bodies to know the signs, rather than be at the mercy of contraception alone? I found it quite empowering

Personally, I don't consider the delivering of the medical complications of DS by HCPs as an "unbalanced" view though. I'm not sure how you can say, "Your child with DS, as an adult, will almost definitely have dementia, with cognitive decline potentially starting from 35 years" and make it sound like a positive thing. You can't promise women that a disabled child may enrich their lives, in case it doesn't.

It was more comments after women had decided, not to test or decided they wanted to continue with their pregnancy, being repeatedly questioned, and negatively commented on. that women have talked about, that I would describe as pressure.

Equally highlighting only the most negative prognosis only is biased.

"Most women terminate because, at that time, they don't want to have a baby. They may never want to have a child. The default position for women is not that they would have all the babies in the world if they could."

But surely one reason that some women choose to abort is down to the fact that our social and economic arrangements make it hard to have a baby these days(especially if you're single).

Unless you're personally going to take the baby born from an unwanted pregnancy and bring it up yourself then you have no right to an opinion about what other women do with the contents of their own uterus. A fetus is not the property of "society".

I'm not saying it is. I am not talking about restricting women's rights regarding abortion. However society provides abortions and trends should be discussed at a societal level. In order to build a better society for women, to make life events a better experience.

"Does anyone know why abortion is so very common in the UK mainland"

Actually, it's not common at all by global standards. This is from the Guttmacher Institute (figures are taken from peer-reviewed journals and are referenced at the end of the article).

• The highest annual rate of abortion in 2010–2014 was in the Caribbean, estimated at 65 per 1,000 women of childbearing age, followed by South America, at 47. The lowest rates were in Northern America, at 17, and Western and Northern Europe—both at 18.

• Across regions, Eastern Europe experienced the largest decline in the abortion rate, from 88 in 1990–1994 to 42 in 2010–2014. Despite this decline, there is a persistent gap in rates between Eastern and Western Europe (42 vs. 18) likely reflecting lower use of effective, modern contraceptive methods in Eastern Europe.

• The overall abortion rate in Africa was 34 per 1,000 women in 2010–2014. Subregional rates ranged from 31 in Western Africa to 38 in Northern Africa. There has been little if any change in abortion rates in these subregions since 1990–1994.

• For Latin America, subregional abortion rates range from 33 in Central America to 47 in South America. Rates have increased slightly since 1990–1994, but not by statistically significant amounts.

• Abortion rates in Asia have also fallen since 1990–1994, although not significantly. Asia’s subregions all have rates close to the regional average of 36 per 1,000 women.

• Highly restrictive abortion laws are not associated with lower abortion rates. When countries are grouped according to the grounds under which the procedure is legal, the rate is 37 abortions per 1,000 women of childbearing age where it is prohibited altogether or allowed only to save a woman’s life, compared with 34 per 1,000 where it is available on request, a nonsignificant difference.

You want to reduce numbers of abortions - make contraception readily available. All that restricting abortion does is to make abortion unsafe; it does nothing to reduce the numbers of abortions.

I read that thread too, and for the few women who felt that the expectation was for termination there were more women who stated they'd had the opposite experience.

Id say it was even more biased for SP to do an entire documentary and not even mention early onset adult dementia. Personally, I'd say that the most severe initial issue related to the 40-50% chance of congenital heart defects, as they're more likely to be serious and need early surgery.

Matilda - wow, I thought the numbers everywhere would be higher. Those poor women needing to access illegal abortions

A fetus is not the property of "society".

Your child is not my property either. Nor is your kidney. But I have ethical opinions about what you should do with them and I'm very glad to have those opinions enforced upon you in law - as are most decent people in a democracy. We elect people to hold us collectively accountable to shared agreements about how to live well, together and separately. There is nothing new in that.

Matilda thanks for that data and ref. Have bookmarked.

What I find quite ironic about these threads is that the same people who argue against women being able to take part in commercial surrogacy (i.e., women are not 'allowed' full bodily autonomy by feminists when it does not fit in with their wider principles) are now clutching their pearls at the notion of women having any legal boundaries about the choices they make with their bodies - and in fact they are prepared to throw up every other moral question and ethical cost in order to achieve full bodily autonomy.

No one has full bodily autonomy - the law imposes absolutes and this protects women from being oppressed as individuals. The idea of having full bodily autonomy is ridiculous and potentially disastrous in many contexts. A generation of lost women is one example that unfortunately has become a living reality of what happens when the state allows a flawed people one form of bodily autonomy.

"... as are most decent people in a democracy".

Does this make me an indecent woman for believing that the contents of a woman's uterus should belong to that woman alone?

That's cheered me up loads, my life is very boring nowadays

"Your child is not my property either. Nor is your kidney. But I have ethical opinions about what you should do with them and I'm very glad to have those opinions enforced upon you in law"

Actually you can't tell anybody what to do with their kidney, or even their blood. You might believe that the only ethical thing to do is to regularly donate blood, but there is something called bodily autonomy which means each individual decides whether or not to use his body to help others stay alive.

So, you see, even if you could convincingly argue that the fetus is a person (and you really haven't), you still can't force the use of a woman's body against her will to keep a 'person' alive. You can't even force her to donate blood to keep another person alive.

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

when the state allows a flawed people

Bonkers

The idea of selective sex abortion for no reason other than not wanting a girl (or I suppose a boy) is disturbing, especially if this is happening in Western societies where the idea that a girl's life will be so awful it would be better if she were never born is wholly untenable There is no comparison between not wanting to be pregnant and being fine about it if it's the right sex.

There is much criticism on here of the UK 2 doctor rule, however there may be something to say for it if it prevents abortions where the only reason is the baby will be the wrong sex, particularly if that is not really the mother's choice.

The problem with delegalising or criminalising abortion based on sex selection is that the right to make their own healthcare choices are taken away from women, and featuses are embuded with 'rights'.

Tricky subject, though.

"selective sex abortion for no reason other than not wanting a girl (or I suppose a boy) is disturbing, especially if this is happening in Western societies where the idea that a girl's life will be so awful it would be better if she were never born"

Except that this isn't really happening, at least in the Western world with which we are most familiar. Who has known or even heard of a woman who aborted a female fetus because she wanted a boy?

It was just an argument by a MNer against abortion for genetic disorders ("Would aborting girls be OK?") which isn't terribly pertinent since "female" isn't a genetic disorder, doesn't limit cognitive abilities and lifespan, doesn't mean multiple physiological issues and a minute chance of independence as an adult. The vast majority of fetuses with genetic disorders are aborted, whereas female fetuses just aren't (at least at a noticeable rate).

"There is much criticism on here of the UK 2 doctor rule, however there may be something to say for it if it prevents abortions where the only reason is the baby will be the wrong sex"

Most abortions are requested within the first trimester when nobody knows the sex of the fetus. There is no excuse for delaying especially a medical abortion where time is of the essence.

So, that's the first restriction, then? No abortion based on gender. There's no evidence that it happens to any significant degree in this country anyway, so it would only affect a very few women. P obably women who feel that their lives would be intolerable if they had the "wrong" sex baby. But there wouldn't be very many of them.

What other restrictions are people thinking about?

I don't know how it could be enforced, Bertrand, except by thought control. How is anyone to know that the abortion is requested on the basis of sex?

I agree. I just want to know what pro choice to 24 weeks with restrictions would actually mean in practice.

Bertrand. I still don't really get what you are so fixated on this for. Surely the bigger issue is to ensure that ALL women in ALL of the uk have equal access to abortion as the law allows at present in certwin parts? And also to Lobby for a change in the law that makes abortion legal? Given the premise of this thread?