Ben Shapiro

[SheDoneAlreadyDoneHadHerses]

Not sure where this fits in UK statistics but applauds

I trust women to make the right moral decisions about their own bodies for their own reasons.

Exactly. If you put limits on abortion somebody has to decide those limits. If somebody is going to decide limits it should be the person whose body it is.

Anything else is bullshit.

Surprised by some of the views on this thread.
1 in 6 pregnancies are unplanned and there is not necessarily a clear link between unplanned pregnancy and abortion according to this wellcome.ac.uk/press-release/one-six-pregnancies-among-women-britain-are-unplanned
No contraception is 100%, I agree with shiny, not having an unplanned pregnancy means you've been lucky, not that those who do have them are lax with contraception/using abortion as a contraceptive.
This whole "there's no excuse for an unwanted pregnancy" is setting an unachievable standard for women.

I think this idea that all pro-choice people must be grappling with deep ethical problems with abortion is pretty undermining tbh. It implies that abortion is inherently distasteful in some way. I don't agree with that at all

Undermining of what? Who on here has said they want abortion to be illegal ? No one. Who on here has said they do not support choice? No one.

If you don't like abortions, never have one. If you have ethical issues with it, never have one. Many women and girls need them and the right to them is so vital

No one has supported the position of denying them that right.

I personally have ethical issues. I have signed petitions/ donated money , argued about a woman's right to abortion.

But as Datun says if was in parliament, I would have a harder stance. But here, in the confines of an anonymous forum, I can express doubts and niggles, that I would have to leave at the door of those negotiations

datun why do women get pregnant by mistake?
I can only talk about my accidental pregnancy, I was on the POP, took one slightly late due to hungover lie in, got preggers.

One of my friends got pregnant with copper coil in situ. Coil was very slightly mispositioned and that was enough.

A man I know almost divorced his wife as he was convinced she was having an affair as couldn't see how she got pregnant, the baby looked exactly like their other 2 children and just like him

I know several people who've got pregnant on the pill.
Anecdata I know but unplanned pregnancy seems fairly common to me

No one on here is anti choice. Not a single person. The link that Amy provided gave examples of when late termination would be necessary. I don't think anyone would have the slightest problem with that.

I also think that the people who come down hard on the side of pro choice also agree that sex education and encouragement to use contraception can't possibly be a bad thing.

The only sticking point seems to be ethics. I'm wondering if ethics is the wrong word. As it suggests a guiding principle used to inform decisions.

Knowing the potential of life and terminating that potential could, and does, create a dilemma for many people. It's not an outrageous concept.

Knowing people feel like that should not and, in my opinion does not, effect their agreement with pro-choice.

In terms of politicising the argument, I think we all understand that these viewpoints don't help to effect change.

I've tried several times in my life to force myself to think something but it doesn't really work.

This one is really, really difficult. I'm grateful for people who can campaign for a right which I would like, whilst at the same time knowing that I would struggle to campaign with their utter conviction.

That concerns me. I need to think some more.

I believe that life starts before birth, probably conception, definitely at the heartbeat stage.

I understand that some people do not share that opinion. Science is inconsistent. Unless there is a big bang in the womb before birth, then there has to be life starting at some point before birth. Pick a stage, any stage. If someone kicks you in the stomach at 25 weeks, is it murder?

However. I accept that this view is not everyone's. I personally would not choose to have an abortion. I believe - it has never been tested, never been in the position

I also believe that I have no right to impose my beliefs/opinions on other women, and to that end, I fully support the right and access to abortion.

What more can be demanded from me? Must my thoughts comply? Any more is totalitarianism

Maybe seeking an abortion wouldn't be "embarrassing" if those doing so weren't bombarded with people telling them it's unethical (even feminists it seems) or having to run the gauntlet of protesters outside clinics harassing them

That was not my point. A poster (I think Shiny) suggested "embarrassment" could be a reason for not getting contraception. The momentary embarrassment of buying condoms would seem preferable to an abortion.

Haven't read through (Why don't you just talk to HR OP? lol) but just wanted to say while I don't agree that all abortions are bad, his logic is internally consistent, although I believe his example was predicated on late term abortions which few support. I would probably say if the fetus could survive outside the womb without incredible medical support/debilitating lifelong issues (and of course, other weird and unforeseeable difficulties that would make an exception) it is a Human Being and we can't just "stab it in the head," as Ben put forth.

I think Ben Shapiro, while I don't always agree with him, is an amazing, persuasive, forthright and respectful speaker/debater and just because you don't agree with his view on one subject doesn't mean you can censor his words. I think in order to be intellectually honest you have to watch the whole video. When I clicked initially I was like "YASS Spartacus" and when I saw the rest of the title I was like "oh fuck not my precious womb rights..." But I stayed and listened and while I am pro choice firmly, I was not offended by anything he said, nor did I feel he was dishonest or morally icky (couldn't thin of fancier sounding words) in regards to the subject. I can respectfully disagree, as he is doing.

Miffer - no, I don't believe that there would be hordes of women rushing to the hospital to abort their pregnancies at 35 weeks, of course not. I suspect that mostly only women with MH problems would seek to do that. But I know that having delivered a healthy but tiny 35 weeker, my views on this are skewed and more emotional than perhaps they should be. I don't know where the cut off point between being a foetus and a baby is, but I feel pretty strongly that my DS was a baby before I delivered him. I know many do not agree with this view.

If legislation was brought forward to either abolish abortion altogether or completely liberalise abortion so that it was available on demand at any point in pregnancy, I would reluctantly support the latter option, as I believe that safe, legal abortion is a fundamental reproductive right. But I would also bet that the vast majority of the population would swing the other way. You know those pictures of foetuses that protesters hold up on their placards outside abortion clinics? They would be replaced with pictures of babies like my DS, and it wouldn't only be the religious right that would have a problem with a law that allowed a woman to walk into a clinic and abort a healthy 35 weeker because she was exercising her right to choose.

You know those pictures of foetuses that protesters hold up on their placards outside abortion clinics

Those aren't accurate images anyway and are another example of the intimidation women have to face simply trying to control what happens with their own bodies. As for terms like "a law that allowed a woman", even that sits uncomfortably to me, as if anyone should have a say over or be able to dictate what a women is "allowed" to do with her own body and, in this sense, life.

Also the last opinion poll on abortion showed 36% responded that they believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances and 3% that it should be illegal in all circumstances.

Amy - it doesn't matter whether those pictures are accurate or not, they still use them. And they would have even more effective pictures to use instead if we legalised abortion on demand to term.

Can you link to that latest opinion poll please? Because I would bet that "in all circumstances" for the purpose of Gallop or Mori or whoever was to distinguish between "when a woman has been raped" / "when the baby is the result of an incestuous relationship" / "when the woman's life would be put at risk if she continued with the pregnancy" / "if the baby would be born with a life limiting condition" type scenarios. I would be genuinely flabbergasted if 36% believed in abortion on demand to term

In this recent YouGov survey (2013), only 6% of respondents favoured changing the current legislation to above 24 weeks, for example

But I know that having delivered a healthy but tiny 35 weeker, my views on this are skewed and more emotional than perhaps they should be.

My son was born at 30 weeks. I honestly don't understand why that matters. My son was born from my body into my family situation at 30 weeks. What does that have to do with somebody elses son/body/situation?

It was 22% in a MORI poll, although admittedly far more opposed it. I shouldn't really have brought up opinion polls as they include the views of men for one thing, and it suggests women's rights are only valid if the majority support them, so was wrong of me to do. I can't link to that opinion poll as I've closed the site I had open which linked to it and need to get to bed imminently.

The pictures are utterly inaccurate and this does matter. It's part of their general campaign of lies and intimidation against women accessing abortion services, and attempting to win people over to their side through misinformation. They also hand out leaflets with lies in them including that having an abortion increases the risk of developing a variety of cancers; I still have a couple of their leaflets in my room somewhere. They, as with all those anti-abortion, seek only to exert control over women's bodies and dictate what we can do with them. Completely misogynistic in my opinion.

It's also a red herring argument; as Miffer said, there would hardly be a rush of late term abortions. It would hardly be something women would "just do", as it is abortion isn't something the vast majority of women who have them choose lightly. The Abortion Rights UK site outlines well why some women might/do need them in extreme circumstances.

If you want to prevent late abortions, then you need easy access to early abortion. Abortion will happen, whether or not it is legal, and late abortions are more common when women have to access them clandestinely.

Remember that there is still no right to first trimester abortion in any of Britain - it can only be obtained if two doctors certify that the pregnancy would be detrimental to the woman's (physical/mental) health. In in NI, abortion is to all intents & purposes illegal. It would not take much to roll back such rights as we have. Contrary to popular perception, a majority of the US population supports abortion, yet in many states it is now virtually impossible to obtain.

Every British woman to reach puberty since the Abortion Act has benefitted from potential access (albeit limited) to abortion, whether or not they have had one. None of us has been in the position of knowing that we would be forced to carry a pregnancy to term, after rape or -as happened to a good friend of mine - after learning that your baby would die at birth.

Even if you would never have an abortion unless raped, remember that several US states now have restrictions on raped women accessing abortion. Don't take abortion access for granted.

shiny - I agree completely with your last post.

Amy - this is an interesting policy area in regards to the views of men and women, as men on the whole are more pro abortion (and more in favour of going beyond the current 24 week limit; more likely to believe that life begins at birth rather than conception). There are some stats to this effect in the YouGov poll linked upthread, but there are lots of other reports that say the same thing over the various polls conducted over the years. Something to mull over.

My point on the pictures is that instead of having the "here is a foetus, look how like a baby she looks already, she's even sucking her thumb!" placards, they could use photos of my baby - who very much looked like a baby when he was born. Apart from his size, you cannot tell by looking that he was prem.

I agree that the people who stand outside clinics with placards have an agenda that goes well beyond opposing abortion: even in my liberal corner of the US there are frequent protests outside the Planned Parenthood clinic along the road from our apartment. There used to be a line on the pavement that they weren't allowed to cross (and the police used to be called to ensure that they didn't), but recently that regulation was repealed, so now they are able to impede women trying to access the clinic as long as they don't make physical contact with them.

Miffer - because I believe that my son was a live, sentient being at 35 weeks before I delivered him, and I cannot think of a reason why I would have been justified in going to the hospital to request an abortion rather than to deliver him at that point. If my circumstances were such that I could not look after him myself, I could have given him up for adoption (and I say that as an adoptive mother, so it's really not a glib throw away comment). I would have to have delivered him anyway, so the risks of labour would have been there anyway.

I have lost count of the number of times a woman has assured me that there is no chance she could be pregnant, then goes on to admit that she is (a) sexually active and (b) not using contraception. This happens several times a week.

But the facts do not support the idea that easier access to abortion increases the abortion rate

How is there not a correlation between the first paragraph and the second paragraph? I'm willing to accept that the statistics say that isn't. But I don't understand why.

If, for the sake of argument (only for the sake of argument, honestly) abortion was made illegal, would there not be fewer people as described in the first paragraph?

Would those people really have such a cavalier attitude to the possibility of pregnancy, if the option for abortion was removed?

I am absolutely pro-choice. I support abortion. And it is purely because I support it that I would like to see as many ways as possible to limit it.

And yes, taking things to their logical conclusion I would not, and could not, support prosecution for seeking an abortion. That does not mean, in an ideal world, I wish there were less of them.

Datun people don't behave logically, I dont know why you're assuming they do.

I think it's pretty established that corporal punishment doesn't decrease crime rate, for example. You'd think the death penalty would be a deterrent but it isn't.

As an aside, the book 'thinking fast and slow' is really good on stuff like this. On the whole, people just don't make decisions according to statistics or likelyhood, there's a huge element of 'it won't happen to me' thinking.

Batteriesallgone

Ok. Thanks for the recommendation. Given what you have just said, do you think it is pointless trying to make people think more logically?

Is the idea of limiting unwanted pregnancies something that is fruitless to address? Or is it that pro-choicers don't focus on it because it detracts from the fight for access to abortion? (Which i'm perfectly willing to accept).

I think unwanted pregnancies should be reduced because whether pregnancy is kept or terminated, an unwanted pregnancy carrys risks of adverse health implications. Of course I think full contraceptive advice should be available to everyone, as I think most pro-choicers do.

To me reducing unwanted pregnancies is nothing to do with abortion. I don't want women to suffer physical changes they don't want to suffer.

Unwanted pregnancies can occur as a result of rape. The reason I am anti-rape (odd wording but hopefully YSWIM) is not because I want to reduce unwanted pregnancies. It's because I'm anti-rape. Obviously a benefit of reducing rape would be reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies but that doesn't inform my feelings about rape.

Reducing unwanted pregnancies might reduce abortions, but it doesn't mean abortions should inform part of the argument for free access to contraception and education. Two different things IMO.

Reducing unwanted pregnancies might reduce abortions, but it doesn't mean abortions should inform part of the argument for free access to contraception and education. Two different things IMO.

Okay, I can definitely see the logic in that statement.

do you think it is pointless trying to make people think more logically?

Yes. And who decides what is logical anyway? It isn't necessarily illogical to have unprotected sex; it's just making a decision to prioritise pleasure (assuming the sex is consensual) over the quite small risk of pregnancy.

There is an offensive woman-blaming undercurrent behind the assumption that "we wouldn't need abortion if these stupid girls could just plan ahead/behave more logically". I'm not suggesting that that is your conscious viewpoint, Datun - I know you believe in women's autonomy - but I do think some of your PPs suggest you may be subconsciously influenced by it.

shinynewusername

You're probably right. Which is why I keep coming back to this thread! I genuinely want to understand.

My opinion is that avoidable unprotected sex is fool hardy. But I can see the difference between thinking that, and agreeing that should someone be fool hardy, they have every right to have an abortion.

The bit I am struggling with is it not logical for me to think there are some people who are fool hardy?

I think your answer to that would be no it's not illogical but it has nothing to do with abortion. And whilst I agree it has nothing to do with abortion rights, does it correlate to actual abortions?

If statistics show that fool hardiness only leads to very few abortions, then I can dispense with that niggle.

This is the first time I have ever engaged with a discussion about abortion, so I appreciate you taking time to explain your viewpoint.