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.

I get you too Oblomov, I too would choose the easy life, I am inherently lazy

We don't always get to choose though, right? I didn't choose DS for my child, or cancer for my siblings and DF, or depression in my DM, or to be incredibly short - these things just happen!

There are some choices we have and some we don't, and that's the whole point of this thread isn't it!

"but rather to tackle what it is that makes living with Down's so problematic in our society."

agree with that Rock.

actually, better still : to tackle what it is that makes living with Down's so problematic in our society

I think living with Downs IS difficult. Or for some. Depnds how severe the DS is. but even if its it mild, its still not NT, which makes it harder.

Mind you NT can be just as hard. Anyone with NT tricky teenagers? Ive got a young 'kevin and perry' on my hands.

terrible two's
troublesome three's
frightful fours

Life is just HARD these days. For many of us.

Bertrand I think you are struggling to get people to give you what they think restrictions should be because hardly anyone posting on mn does think there should be restrictions around termination before a certain time.

Talking about how information is presented around conditions such as ds or how society values gingers less and should be changed to value ginger hair is not the same as saying no ginger children should be allowed to be terminated or no children with ds should be terminated.

Oblamov there could well be conversations like that in a few years time, who knows?!

Indeed. some things we get to choose. Many we don't. But, we still have to 'just get on with it', don't we? What's the alternative?

Handbag, I suspect it is going that way.
Soon we'll be deciding individual characteristics. tick the boxes please madame. so you want a 6 ft 5 Aryan race blond haired engineer then?
yes please!!

Bertrand in answer to your question, I'm not sure. I am caught between saying women not having to justify a reason, until term, for everyone and not having to justify until viability and from then until full term there needing to be evidence that shows carrying the baby until full term and giving birth would seriously endanger a woman's life.

I feel if I was more medically qualified, I would be able to give a better answer. There may be the potential of medically managing carrying a baby to term, rather than having a late abortion, better, which would make this a less traumatic prospect for some. This would influence my decision. Equally if women were allowed to insist that any subsequent adopted child would not be given their details in the future, thus might make carrying a baby to term easier for some.

Bertrand. This thread is inaccurate in its premise and also only about certain parts of the uk.

Interesting that you are so unconcerned about the legal position and about the position particularly in Northern Ireland. That might be said to be jingoistic.

Auser- you have absolutely no fucking idea what I think about anything- let alone the Irish abortion situation. You could just guess, I suppose. Or you could search past threads about Savita Halappanavar (I presume you've heard of her- if not google is your friend) and it will become pretty clear.

Now either explain clearly what problem you have with me or stop following me for thread to thread and sniping. Because it's fucking tedious.

The Irish abortion situation? I was talking about Northern Ireland, which is part of the uk. But if you want to talk about Ireland I'm happy so to do.

Northern Ireland law is not the same as Southern Ireland law.

I think most of us have managed to understand that this thread is about parts of the UK where abortion on demand is actually possible.

But isn't that kind of cultural imposition? Isn't it little englander? Shouldn't we be fighting for equal rights for all women in the uk to have the same access to whatever abortion is decided is Legal? Shouldn't we be fighting to have abortion made legal and not just an exception?

And no harm but knowing what the difference is between Northern Ireland and the separate country of Ireland would be a good start before you jump down someone's throat, no?

Right.

So far you have called me (as far as I recall) disablist, jingoistic, a cultural imperialist, rude, dismissive and grossly unfair. And followed me from thread to thread to do it.

And you still won't explain what your bloody point is. This is a discussion, not a guessing game.

I have explained my point. Repeatedly.

Rock I've been on this thread all the way through and I get what it means. I've made the point that societal change is absolutely what's needed to reduce the number of terminations due to disability. But 'just because' is also a good enough reason for termination and I feel that point is getting lost. And it's an important point to make. You don't have to have any reason, other than 'I don't want a baby.' No ifs, not buts. So it is difficult to then talk about any qualifications without worrying about what Bertrand so memorably calls 'the salami slice of women's rights'.

Do I want to see eugenics? No. Of course not. As the mother of a child with ASD (ASD in-utero testing is said to be around 5 years away) I absolutely have skin in the game. But no woman needs to justify their reasons for termination as far as I'm concerned.

and in case it was in doubt, I was only teasing about he choosing of characteristics earlier. I think it might well be on its way sadly. but no, I don't want to see eugenics.

stop following me for thread to thread

Didn't you follow the discussion to the disablism thread and say it was perfectly natural to do so, bertrand?

I don't want to see eugenics.

No one wants to see eugenics. It's not something you go after, usually. And no one thinks it's going to happen because every decision is on an individual basis.

Rather, it's the kind of thing that you realise afterwards has happened as collateral damage while everyone was trying to get what they wanted and avoid what they didn't want.

And that's why we shouldn't be able to do it, really. Some personal decisions have ramifications that are bigger than ourselves and our own families.

So gone you oppose termination of fetuses with genetic abnormalities but not terminations for other reasons?

I'm with lonny - "just because" is good enough. No woman should have to gestate, give birth to and bring up a baby she doesn't want.

Lonny

We agree then. Well, at least in the principles involved, albeit not the emphasis of conversation.

I, personally feel too much time has been given to abortion being a justified choice for some women. This may be not only because I get it, but also because I believe a woman does not have to justify her reasons to anyone.

I would suspect that a lot of people who want to make obtaining an abortion more difficult for women to abort a feotus, diagnosed with Down's, not because they feel the reasons for doing so are totally invalid, but because they believe the only way to tackle the high abortion rate for Down's, is to make obtaining an abortion more difficult. So again, seeking to validate women's reasoning to abort does not, necessarily, affect the reasoning behind wanting to change the law. They probably then feel the law will then act as a catalyst as to change within society.

I disagree with this. There are enough people breaking the law in society to show that laws do not always effectively change societal perceptions. So like, you, I believe in tackling the injustice and social inequalities that lead women to abort and that 'just because' is enough reason to allow a woman to abort.

However I do think it is important to say the high figures of women aborting due to Down's is a problem, societally, in order to stress that there needs to be a conversation about why this is so and for there be a desire to change it. Otherwise people could be capitalising on abortion being available, as an opportunity not to have deal with the challenges people with Down's face.

Rather, it's the kind of thing that you realise afterwards has happened as collateral damage while everyone was trying to get what they wanted and avoid what they didn't want. And that's why we shouldn't be able to do it, really. Some personal decisions have ramifications that are bigger than ourselves and our own families.

So do you propose we force women to carry disabled children they don't want for diversity?

I don't understand the eugenics argument.
I thought eugenics was about breeding out undesir able characteristics. That means the characteristics need to be heritable.
Downs and similar are disorders rather than heritable characteristics. They will occur in a similar proportion of pregnancies regardless of termination rates. So termination is not eugenics.

bert to answer your question I think the only way it can work is to have a time cut off like the 24 week one. There is some logic there to me in terms of viability because I guess a woman could choose to end the pregnancy (through inducing birth) without necessarily causing the death of the foetus.
In reality I don't think women have late term abortions just because they fancy it so I wouldn't mind at all if the law had no time limit.

At the moment, women's rights are restricted. We can't have an abortion up to 24 weeks for any reason at all, as far as the law goes. This might happen in practice, but if the law was applied more strictly, then women would have to give reasons.

I'm not saying this is right (I don't think it is), but there can be an assumption that women don't have to currently answer to anyone, that isn't true. Shouldn't we focus on fixing this first?

With regards to terminating past 24 weeks, I struggle to accept this for conditions which aren't compatible with life without pain, or for the woman's health.

Yet I know that there will always be someone who can think of a good example, that falls outside of that criteria, and I find myself thinking that abortion seems reasonable in those circumstances.

I suppose I don't like the idea of being able to terminate a healthy pregnancy due to the foetus having a non-painful, incompatible with life, disability.

Children with disabilities may have additional needs, but so may many born without any apparent disability.

Yes, there can be early onset dementia, but dementia drugs are advancing all the time, and any child could have a head injury which has the same outcome in terms of additional needs.

As women tend to leave pregnancy until later in life now, increasing the risks of having a baby with a disability, do we need to ask ourselves before we conceive, if we could manage a baby with disability? Do we need to accept that leaving it later has increased those chances, and so we would be unwise to get pregnant if we couldn't cope?

I only ask this, as it put me off having a second child, as my first had some minor birth defects, and I felt that maybe my eggs weren't in the best of health anymore.

As women tend to leave pregnancy until later in life now, increasing the risks of having a baby with a disability, do we need to ask ourselves before we conceive, if we could manage a baby with disability? Do we need to accept that leaving it later has increased those chances, and so we would be unwise to get pregnant if we couldn't cope?

I don't think so. I had a tfmr at 21 when I was supposed to be in my egg prime. If you're saying that's a conversation that women need to have with themselves then it's not just for elder women.

"Some personal decisions have ramifications that are bigger than ourselves and our own families."

So women should continue pregnancies and give birth to babies when they don't want to for the greater good? Does that go for all unwanted pregnancies? If not, how do you choose?

I think too many people are projecting how they feel themselves which is unnecessary really.
No one really cares what you would do/feel is right (no offence to anyone) You can still believe all women should have access to a termination up to birth without doing that yourself or choosing a different path (or whatever) the two are different things aren't they?

The law should be there to protect people who already exist and I don't believe restrictions should be put on it at all.

Is that what we are discussing? As I feel it all gets blurred and I agree that no woman should have to justify an abortion at all.