Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

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

398 replies

BertrandRussell · 12/10/2016 08:18

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.

OP posts:
Rockpebblestone · 12/10/2016 10:12

..although I understand why some people would not want to have a conversation about abortion to inevitably go hand in hand with a conversation about support for people with disabilities.

Original poster
BertrandRussell · 12/10/2016 10:20

I don't want to derail this thread. But I have to say that neither of the threads concerned were about support for people with disabilities and their parents. I would not have dreamed of presuming to post on such a thread.

OP posts:
Ausernotanumber · 12/10/2016 10:53

Bertrand. I must be honest. I thought the thread on site stuff was a support thread.

OvariesForgotHerPassword · 12/10/2016 11:00

As early as possible, as late as necessary.

That has been and always will be my stance.

Original poster
BertrandRussell · 12/10/2016 11:03

Auser- I don't understand why you would think that. It was started specifically to talk about the diablist language and attitudes by posters on 2 other threads. The OP had reported the threads but MNHQ had passed them as OK. It seemed to me entirely appropriate for said posters to explain/defend themselves.

However- I would hate for this thread to become derailed too.............

OP posts:
Ausernotanumber · 12/10/2016 11:03

I have answered you on the other thread. Which this is a TAAT of.

BishopBrennansArse · 12/10/2016 11:05

It was actually about disablism on the boards which is a huge issue and had been triggered by the SP threads. Then became yet another thread about termination for disability when it was about disablism as a whole and how firmly entrenched it is here.

That's the problem many had with it.

Ausernotanumber · 12/10/2016 11:06

And this is what I posted.

It was a thread by those with a personal investment in disablism to ask why HQ allowed it.

Can't you see that?

(And didn't you mean this reply to be on your TAAT in feminism?)

Original poster
BertrandRussell · 12/10/2016 11:06

I have explained earlier why I think this is not really a TAAT. However, the more others bring the discussion across the more it becomes one. Particularly since my posting mix up- I had gone across to make sure I was not misremembering the OP.

OP posts:
LonnyVonnyWilsonFrickett · 12/10/2016 11:07

It should be termination after this point [24 weeks] only for life threatening situations.
Before this point I support the right of all women to choose to terminate for any reason even if I personally disagree.That's my definition of pro choice.

But it's not my definition of pro choice Bishop. So you'd force a rape victim who had been in denial about being pregnancy to carry and deliver a baby at full term? Or a very young mother who didn't actually realise she was pregnant? That's about as far from pro-choice as you can get, to be honest.

Ausernotanumber · 12/10/2016 11:08

Bertrand. I asked. Perhaps you missed it.

What law?

specialsubject · 12/10/2016 11:12

I don't see that allowing a woman to decide not to have a disabled child (within the limits of the law on abortion) is anything at all to do with disabled rights. Like it or not, we differentiate between foetuses and people, and 'people' begins at birth.

People have rights, disabled or not, and all deserve help and support. We don't give enough (although try some other countries) - so campaigning and fund-raising should focus on that.

Choice means just that - if a woman chooses to continue with a pregnancy where the child will be disabled, we should support that too. (Let's face it, anyone can become disabled) But it has to be her choice because she will bear the main responsibility. Same as with continuing any pregnancy.

BishopBrennansArse · 12/10/2016 11:23

Lonny that wouldn't be legal now anyway. The limit is 24 weeks.

scallopsrgreat · 12/10/2016 11:34

Well its not legal (at the moment) but is it pro-choice to ever force a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy?

NotCitrus · 12/10/2016 11:34

True Bishop, but I think the law is wrong. I would like abortion on demand, until birth for everyone, not just women carrying fetuses with disabilities

And yes, that would mean that one early birth would be counted as a miscarriage or abortion and another would be counted as a baby that doctors would work to save, based on the choice of the pregnant woman.

I know many other people think that's a step too far and that choice should only count up to say 24 weeks, but I don't think there's anything to be gained by saying such people aren't pro-choice I'm much more worried about those who claim to be pro-choice (or not) who want to salami-slice current abortion rights.

JasperDamerel · 12/10/2016 11:37

To me, being pro choice means that I believe any person with the capacity to make an informed choice gets to have the final say over what happens to their body, even if that choice seems repugnant or incomprehensible to me.

Where I see people making I consider make big the 'wrong' choice, my moral duty isn't to impose my views on their body, but to increase their range of options in case another choice is more acceptable to them. If it isn't, then I have to accept their choice.

This applies to abortion, tattoos, suicide, sex work and all sorts of other areas of life.

JasperDamerel · 12/10/2016 11:38

Although with some of those, capacity is a huge issue.

BishopBrennansArse · 12/10/2016 11:48

Problem with that, Not, is that pregnancies that end in ways other than termination are considered births and deaths at 23 weeks. You'd be straying towards infanticide as the law currently stands.

Ausernotanumber · 12/10/2016 11:51

Can I make the point as well that abortion remains technically illegal in England Wales and Scotland and that the Abortion act only allowed exceptions.

scallopsrgreat · 12/10/2016 11:53

And that is a really good point to make. Which is why women need two doctors to sign for an abortion.

scallopsrgreat · 12/10/2016 11:54

And so the law isn't even pro-choice so I'm not sure you could have the statement pro choice means that a woman should be able to have an abortion within the law because she wants to.

Ausernotanumber · 12/10/2016 11:56

That's what I'm trying to get to and I'd like someone to clarify for me scallops.

FruitCider · 12/10/2016 11:56

I guess I'm neither pro choice or forced birther. In my little utopia a woman would have the right to say "I don't want this baby. I don't want to be pregnant anymore.", be induced, baby off to NICU, woman signs all rights/responsibilities away.

And who would look after this baby?

MilkTwoSugarsThanks · 12/10/2016 12:17

Fruit - as I said utopia. The babies would be placed for adoption. Given how rare it would be likely to happen I don't think that would put a massive extra strain on adoption services.

So not perfect but imo better than a 37week termination.

FrameyMcFrame · 12/10/2016 12:27

Yes I agree!

One thing I have seen recently on Facebook that really fucked me off was a meme along the lines of 'I'm pro life for myself and pro choice for anyone else' so meaning that they'd never have an abortion themselves but would be fine about others having one.
I think that's passively shaming those who have had abortions. And it's also irrelevant, either you agree that abortion should be safe and legal or you don't.

Swipe left for the next trending thread