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.

Bertrand. I am well aware of what the law is. That's why I asked the questions I did.

I think there's something odd about coming into a thread to discuss what pro choice means, only to be told what it means and that's the only thing it could possibly mean.

Why not call the thread ' all those who might think they're pro choice, come here and I will diagnose you according to the only possible set of criteria'. This was an educational thread in disguise. Which is Bertrand has pronounced.

Pro choice to me means supporting women's right to choose to abort. It doesn't matter what the reason is one bit.
I personally think the law confuses this, as they make it acceptable only up to 26 weeks. I would support a change in the law to increase this.

I also think the term has been hi jacked. So many people who seem to believe abortion is ok if the pregnancy was from rape, or the mother is very young. Pro choice does not mean you have a few exceptions where abortion is acceptable.
Pro choice means all abortions are acceptable; the only thing that matters is that it is the woman's choice.

Here's a suggestion. Why don't all the "bertrandrussell smells of wee" posters take 5 minutes to discuss which particular wee she smells of? Come back when you've had enough. Then we can carry on with the discussion. Which I think is important, and will become increasingly more important as pre natal testing becomes more accurate, and as attempts are being made to salami slice women's rights by the conservative right and by some religious groups.

Do we want abortion to 24 weeks no questions asked? Or do we want abortion to 24 weeks so long as the woman can answer some questions- and if so what questions?

I think it's very dangerous to let this argument be diverted to talking about the tiny minority of abortions which might happen after 24 weeks. The much more important restriction on abortion in Great Britain is that it is not available on demand but entirely dependant on the woman persuading two doctors that her reasons for wanting one are good enough and serious enough. Wikipedia summary

Now in practice most clinics make that such a low bar that it's effectively abortion on demand. But it's a hostage to fortune. At any time a moral crusade might decide that "rubber stamping abortion doctors" are a scandal that should be clamped down on and that the letter of the law should be adhered to. That's what we need liberalising, and a call to decriminalise abortion up to term would distract from that more important fight (and of course the fight for abortion availability in Northern Ireland).

Twenty, I don't think anyone here is qualified to pronounce exactly what it means, as demonstrated by so many people's perfectly valid understanding of the term as it is currently used.

I'm a bit fucked off with people declaring what is absolute truth and what isn't.

By the way Bertrand, if we are talking to viability, I agree personally that pro-choice means termination to that point with no questions asked. I think that is what most people here are saying.

On the subject of sex selective abortion, what I worry about is that if you legalise it completely then if a woman has the "wrong" type of baby it becomes entirely her fault. It's no longer bad luck or just one of those things - it's clearly the result of her deliberate choice to do so, and hence she's more likely to suffer negative repercussions. That as I understand it is part of the reason behind the laws in India (which make it illegal to tell couples the sex of the baby - admittedly with limited success).

There are of course analogies that you could draw with the Great British law on abortion of disabled foetuses.

Indeed, Enquiring. It's essential to remember that the 1967 Abortion Act actually just identifies some loop holes in previous legislation - it absolutely has not 'legalised abortion'.

I believe that every woman should have a choice, Id never judge someone who had one although after hearing of a friend of a friend who has just brought her baby born at 24 weeks prem home perfectly healthy from hospital I do wonder that the no of weeks should be lowered to nearer 20-22 weeks where the baby would not have been viable if born?

Yy EnquiringMinge. Making abortion on demand legal up to 24 weeks should be the top priority at this point.

Claiming 'pro-choice' as a term only applying to unrestricted term abortion risks playing into the hands of the pro-life movement, especially in countries where abortion is still illegal or heavily restricted. It gives apparent credence to the noxious ' slippery slope argument' - eg 'The pro-Choice movement are actually demanding abortion until term - if we liberalise our existing abortion laws then this will be the next step...'.

I think that is an excellent point (and not just because I've said similar on previous discussions)

The rhetoric of the "bodily autonomy until birth" will cut absolutely no ice with the legislature in the Republic of Ireland or Poland. I don't think it doed women any favours by pushing it.

Christina. Exactly my point.

At any time a moral crusade might decide that "rubber stamping abortion doctors" are a scandal that should be clamped down on

Do you really believe they'd get anywhere with that?

I''m still not clear on how we differentiate between people who are pro choice to 24 weeks completely on demand, and pro choice to 24 weeks in particular circumstances. Do we need to? I still think that the second can't/shouldn't be called pro choice, but I think I am being outvoted......

Are you able to grasp the concept of a spectrum, bertrand? That's what's happening here.

"At any time a moral crusade might decide that "rubber stamping abortion doctors" are a scandal that should be clamped down on"

I would be interested to know what would happen if that was put to a referendum.......

"Are you able to grasp the concept of a spectrum, bertrand? That's what's happening here."

Yes of course I am. But what I can't grasp is how that would work in practice. Because you can have a spectrum where abortion gets increasingly restricted as you move to the right, but that would still be a spectrum of restrictions. No restrictions at all doesn't have a place on that spectrum. And neither does no abortion at all.

Are you able to grasp the concept of a spectrum, bertrand?

Are you able to grasp that different points of that spectrum are not all covered by the same term?

Pro-choice is USED to mean lots of different things. It can mean pro-choice up to a certain point, it can mean pro-choice if I agree with your reasons, it can mean pro-choice for some people and not for others.

What some people here are trying to do is pretend that these differences dont' matter at all and that everyone who calls themselves pro-choice is saying the same thing and we don't need to talk about the differences. Which is obviously rubbish.

Pro-choice within the current law is a common stance, and a common use of the term. But logically you have to agree that if that is your stance then what you mean is pro-choice for a period and then an END to choice. And thats fine if thats your stance. But its a qualified definition of prochoice.

The current law, Bertrand, is not completely on demand to 24 weeks.

"We are more than individuals. We are also members of communities with a collective responsibility to each other as well as ourselves. That means we each have a responsibility to make choices that will create an inclusive, responsible society"

NO!

You are talking about forcing women to have babies they don't want, for some greater good. Just NO to that.

It was suggested on the DS thread, iirc. That more people with DS would be good for the existing DS population, as it would mean better understanding & acceptance.

I don't doubt that your heart is in the right place and that you are coming from a place of compassion, but it is totally and utterly unacceptable to suggest women should be forced to birth and care for babies with genetic disorders to make others feel better.

Cote, that quote needn't mean forcing women to have babies they don't want. It could be taken to mean we should be proactively addressing the prejudice and lack of support people with disabilities face, in order to make our country a place in which women feel more confident in continuing with their pregnancy, when the feotus has been diagnosed with a disability.

The point is that you wouldn't have to put it up to a referendum Bertrand. The letter of the law in England and Wales is really very restrictive and there are a bunch of mechanisms which a government that's so inclined could use to tighten up funding etc to enforce the letter of the law. You could even try and prosecute doctors for performing abortions according to entirely normal current practice. Now I do believe that the majority of British doctors would go to the wall to defend the status quo, but I really wouldn't want to see them forced into that position.

Well said rock but cote and I are coming from such different places that there's little point.

bertrand Surely the extreme views are at either end of the spectrum? If it is so important to you to distinguish between completely free-for-all pro-choice and pro-choice within parameters, I can indeed appreciate that the present naming system is inadequate. However, I don't think you're going to get the term 'pro-choice' back for labelling what you want it to label.

How does it sit with you that no ethics committee would approve what you are pushing for?

cote Rather than forcing women to care for disabled babies to make others feel better I suggest you consider societies in which there are hardly any women because the girls have been selectively aborted.