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.

*certain

Phone and fat fingers.

Auser.

Under what terms do you think women should have access to an abortion?

The thread states "abortion within the law because she wants to"

That's not the current legal position even in all of the uk and certainly not world wide. Surely it smacks of cultural relativism and an English / Welsh / Scottish centric view? I really didn't think (genuine not being snippy) that you thought like that and I'm a bit shocked.

Coming at the whole debate from a feminist legal theory point of view I see it rather differently.

Bertrand. What law are you referring to in your initial posit?

Tricky question, isn't it?

Just to be clear - abortion purely on the grounds of the sex of the foetus is illegal in Great Britain. The evidence is that it happens or is requested and refused occasionally but is rare.
www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/456642/sex_selection_doc.pdf
A bill to make it specifically illegal was defeated on the grounds that it already is.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-31596968

No Bertrand. It's not.

I had an abortion. As I have said. At 18 plus 5 days. Due to fatal fetal abnormality. But I think there is a cultural imperialism in your initial post and other postings that makes me feel uneasy about what agenda you might have.

Surely if one wishes to say "abortion should be legal for any reason "

To me, the first step is to Make abortion legal. In all of the jurisdiction (which I note you have not yet clarified) and then look at the reasons for the abortion. At the moment in no area of the uk is abortion legal. That's the bigger concern in my view. And it is playing with semantics to do anything else.

nolonger cote, regarding the risks of serious health conditions and cognitive impairments associated with Down's, if you added up all the statistics of serious health condidtions, diseases, accidents causing disability a feotus which appears healthy could contract/experience/be diagnosed with, the chance would be very high their quality of life would be affected. This does not mean the 'best solution' is for them never to be born.

As I said though, I do not believe a woman should have to justify her pregnancy choices to another person. We need to deal social / medical problems at a societal level because there would be a non existent birth rate if people tried to screen out every possibility of potential health problem or cognitive impairment before birth.

There are many ways to contribute to society, a health condition or cognitive impairment does not preclude having a valid contribution. The rhetoric which only focuses on the challenges a disabled person may face is part of the problem, when talking about pregnancy choices, which a erodes women's choice to continue with her pregnancy.

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

Did I say anything about refusing where the sex is not known?

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?

There is research to show this does happen, albeit not in huge numbers.

Cultural imperialism?

I think it is pretty clear- well, it has been to everyone else-that this thread is about the U.K.

If it wasn't. I'm sorry. This thread is about the U.K.

Under what terms do you think a woman in the U.K. should have access to an abortion?

Bertrand, I'm glad you started a thread to discuss termination as an intellectual argument.

Nipt means that in theory you can know the sex of a child very early on, Private tests will tell you, NHS might or might not, who knows. Nipt will in the future also be able to tell you other things about your child too, that people may think are good reasons to terminate for themselves. Personally, I feel if we're going down the designer baby route it is more ethically appropriate to sort the genetics out in a lab prior to implantation than terminate because the foetus is not living up to societies expectations of what a child should be, conditions incompatible with life excepted.

Women should be able to terminate until the baby is viable as a stand alone human, imho, which is roughly the current position here I believe.

However, I also feel there is a difference between terminating a child because you don't want it and terminating a child because you do want it but it was a girl/boy/ginger/ whatever and because it wasn't what you wanted/ the father wanted/ society wanted you now don't want it or can't have it. It makes me think of women in these situations like battery chickens or in puppy farms as something that can be made to have pregnancies over and over until they get it 'right'.

I don't know if the laws around termination will change due to advances in genetic testing. If current laws are to go by, perhaps women will have more opportunities to terminate to term because more disabilities will be identified.

It doesn't sound like the current law is that foolproof anyway, needing two doctors to sign off a termination because of the mother's physical or mental state does not sound like termination for any reason. In practice it might, but it would be easier to make getting to see two doctors that will sign it off impossible than it would be to change the laws regarding terminations in specific circumstances.

I think it is possible to discuss the impacts of genetic testing and the possible consequences of them without just assuming that anyone that wants to do so is not pro choice. I think women should be able to discuss their own experiences of genetic testing and choices around termination without censure or disbelief. I do not think that women should be denied terminations.

"However, I also feel there is a difference between terminating a child because you don't want it and terminating a child because you do want it but it was a girl/boy/ginger/ whatever and because it wasn't what you wanted/ the father wanted/ society wanted you now don't want it or can't have it."

Morally - perhaps, but legally I don't think it's possible to differentiate. I think we need to accept that pro-choice means that women will terminate for reasons that some people may think are inadequate.

Agree with the posters who said that we should simultaneously work to improve society's attitudes towards disability etc etc and give greater support to women who feel forced to terminate for practical reasons when they'd rather not.

I am pro-choice, 100%.

The thought of terminating a third trimester pregnancy makes me feel physically queasy, personally, and I'm sure most women feel this way.

Until you find yourself in a situation where this is the only right decision for you and the "baby" you have no place to judge.

Our law of having to go through 2 medical professionals rather than do it yourself is fine, as it keeps women safe BUT you are condemned after 24 weeks. You have to claim psychological problems or whatever and jump through hoops.

No woman in her right mind EVER needs a late abortion with no good reason. It is not up to some high horsed notion of "perfect society" or moral posturing to decide for HER what is best for her, and the future that the unborn child will find itself in.

It makes uncomfortable thinking because women are supposed to be caring and giving under all circumstance. But if a woman finds herself needing a late termination you can guarantee it is done with a heavy heart and great deal of thought. There will always be a very good reason for it and we need to accept that.

I say this having had more than one abortion myself none of which were without trauma.

Some women simply can't raise a child, or they know that the child will probably have FAS or other problems and that child will live a life of misery.

I'm kinda with cote and bertrand what exceptions will you assume to force a woman into an unwanted birth?

Hear hear ophelia
The conversation about circumstances where it's OK to prevent women terminating infantilises women and makes it sound like we can't be trusted to make the right decision.
And actually a conversation about "designer babies" is kind of disabilist. Either you believe all potential life is equally valuable - in which case termination should either be the choice of the mother regardless of whether the baby has red hair, is a boy, is DS. Or no termination is allowed.
Or you believe some life is less valuable and it's more acceptable to terminate those pregnancies. That makes me feel a bit icky.
I'm pro choice, always

rock The rhetoric which only focuses on the challenges a disabled person may face is part of the problem...

Ok. So as a HCP you're obligated to discuss the risks of heart abnormalities, most of which will require surgery, learning difficulties, increased risk of autism, hearing issues, speech and language difficulties, thyroid problems, initial feeding problems then subsequent problems with obesity, increase change of haematological malignancies and fairly inevitable adult dementia making long term independent living unlikely. You have seen families fall apart under the strain of having a critically unwell infant following cardiac surgery no the need for prolonged intensive care stays. However, you are mindful that you need to be "balanced".

How do you think this balance should be achieved? You can't say, "If you continue with the pregnancy this child will bring you joy and you will love him/her with all your heart". It will probably be true but you can't tell people how they will feel, in case they don't.

You could say that there are more severe conditions than DS but I don't think many people would find that reassuring.

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?

You are naive, cote. And cocooned in a self-absorbed British bubble. No country makes these decisions in a vacuum and they do indeed influence the rest of the world.

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)

You are disablist, cote.

Please let's not throw accusations. This is supposed to be a thread where people can say what they think. Report anything you think is disablist if you must. Otherwise put your point of view.

Please stop this. I cant stand it.
accusations of being disablist.

I was accused of being disablist. I was upset by that, I took umbrage.

its a terrible thing to just bandy about.

It's just gone steering things back to her anti-abortion agenda.

So it's disablist now to recognise you couldn't cope with a baby who had a disability and choose to abort it?

What happened to pro-choice means that? Up to the woman?

That's why I asked earlier for the definition of disablism.
and it was 'to make someone feel inferior'.

which is not what I do. I don't want anyone to feel inferior.
I expect general population to be sympathetic and understanding to disabled people. But also disabled people to be sympathetic and understanding to others aswell.

I have very strong views about this.

And it is the absolute fastest way to completely shut down a debate. Because the people having this discussion are kind, thoughtful people who are trying to find a way through a difficult and emotive subject. Which needs to be talked about.

Well if the definition of disabliism is to make people feel inferior, then surely, women who are forced to go through a birth with a child who has a genetic condition could be made to feel inferior?

Because she wanted to abort, but she got so much disapproval and accusations that she was wrong?

I'm not sure it's right to call Cote disablist, however I will say that I think she is terribly misinformed and has certainly got some preconceived ideas about DS in particular. Pretty much like the majority of people really.

This is not the thread to be discussing that however, and I don't want to derail it - but for those who are interested;

Alzheimer's not inevitable

Living independently more than ever

Life expectancy

I took Cote to mean, here in the West, which is where this conversation is happening, women are not choosing to abort female babies. They are choosing abortion based on other serious reasons such as poverty, drug/alcohol addiction, being in an abusive situation, or needing to keep your figure because whatever, many many reasons.

Saying to these women No, abortion is wrong because in India and China women are forced to abort female infants under cultural practice, is a fallacy.

Indian and Chinese who emigrate to the west enjoy not having to commit these practices.

I'm not saying it's irrelevant because it's obviously a terrible thing but "PRO choice" does not mean we are all suddenly going to start terminating female babies.