I’m firmly pro-choice but...

[Banana8080]

....I’m not ok with gender selection abortion ie girls.

But if I’m pro-choice then I shouldn’t be interested in motives at all... argh! I don’t know how to reconcile this with myself.

Labour announced today they’d stop early gender blood tests which prompted this post.

barracker

You have put it perfectly. I whole heartedly agree .

I would say that being pro choice is about someone's right to have an abortion. I believe women should always have the right to an abortion.

However I don't always have to agree with their reasoning. There's lots of things I think people have the right to do without necessarily agreeing with them actually doing it.

I would say there are two different things at play and the issue I have with sex selective abortion is more about what it could do on a societal level, what it says about having the unwanted sex and what it says about their views on their own children. So terminating a pregnancy because of the child being a girl that a) shows girls are bad, having a girl is a negative thing and b) it suggests that a child is an accessory almost rather than an actual human being separate from their parents. It almost shows an ownership, like the child is a car rather than a human being. Does that make sense?

So I don't disagree with the actual termination, it's more about the thinking behind sex selective termination and the concept of it rather than the actual act of abortion.

I think it's true that abortion is either right or wrong, it's either a parasite foetus or a baby and therefore it can't be right to 'kill a baby' in some circumstances and not others (I don't think terminating a pregnancy is killing a baby btw)

Women are deemed irresponsible if they don't use contraception.

Women are deemed, at the very least, irresponsible if they have an abortion.

Women can't win in this scenario.

Never a mention of men, who are fertile 100% of the time from puberty onward. Men are the sex who should be responsible for the control of fertility. It doesn't happen though because women don't trust men deep down.

I'm with Barracker on this one. You don't fix a systemic problem within a social group by policing individual women's uteruses, or by denying them information about their healthcare in a paternalistic way. The underlying entrenched misogyny doesn't go away.

Women should have the right to choose, even if those choices are being made in a real world situation of a restricted range of options, and even if we don't agree with them.

What would be more valuable would be taking forced marriage and domestic violence seriously as crimes, enabling women to report forced marriage anonymously, putting more funding into domestic violence shelters and the like.

I oppose anything that stops women having an abortion at the earliest (and usually safest) possible stage of her pregnancy. Many of these women will surely abort further down the line anyway.

The way to tackle non medical sex selective abortion is to raise the status of girls and women. The proposal is a blunt instrument. It won't solve a complex problem that affects girls and women throughout their lives.

I have to say I agree. Of course, this is all tremendously inaccurate as a discussion as regards the law anyway, because women do not currently have a right to abort a child for any reason they choose - be it poverty, misogyny or just because they don't want to be pregnant.

So, in sense we are already in the realm of controlling women's pregnancy choices by fairly arbitrary means. And, even though I don't personally agree with it, I can certainly see the strength of the argument that the law should be changed to acknowledge the reality that women are choosing abortion regardless of the fairly strict restrictions around doctor's permissions and so forth.

I'm conflicted too OP.

I would define myself as pro choice but ethical dilemmas like this make me question this. If as a society we condone the abortion of babies based on their sex then this is surely reinforcing and to an extent condoning the misogyny that undoubtedly underlies this phenomenon. We may have equality legislation, drives to increase women's participation in politics, STEM etc but yet fundamentally we would be state funding through the NHS the abortion of fetuses for the sole reason that they are female. It just doesn't sit right with me to do this and sends really conflicting messages about what we as a society stand for.

I do think the easy answer is to hope somehow for a change to the paternalistic cultures where this is most prevalent but if I'm being honest I think in the short/medium term this would be optimistic at best and potentially a bit naive. I do think we should be doing all the stuff that would encourage the attitude shift too don't get me wrong, however I wouldn't be happy to support the sex based abortions in the meantime.

The underlying misogyny is the problem, as always. Lets sort that out
instead of policing women.

I think termination of any otherwise wanted foetus on grounds of sex (sexism), disability (ableism) or any other perceived "defect" is an ethical violation.

That said how could you possibly police this? It's impossible.

It's not about 'happy to support sex based abortions'
It's about the individual woman and her uterus, and her right to her own medical record.

You have to push your thinking to its conclusion, not stop at 'I don't like this.'
Do you dislike it ENOUGH to criminalise a woman for accessing her own medical record? Do you dislike it enough that you support criminalising a woman for her own termination? Do you dislike it enough that you would force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term that you KNOW she doesn't want? Do you dislike it enough that it becomes a more important principle than a woman's bodily autonomy?

I dislike that we live in a society that hates girls this much that sex selection exists.
I don't dislike women making these decisions enough to criminalise them for knowing information about, and controlling their own bodies. Their OWN BODIES.

I wouldn't give state control over any woman's body to achieve a greater aim. I'll say it again. Women are not breeding stock. Not for patriarchy, and not for feminism either. The moment you decide a woman's rights are forfeit because you think it will create a better society for women's rights, you have lost your way, and badly.

YY UpstartCrow.

I am deeply suspicious of proposals like this when they are not accompanied by action to raise the status of women and girls at every stage of life. Do they really want to protect girls or are they just trying to ensure that sufficient breeders are available for future generations? We couldn't have men left on the shelf. And imbalanced populations hand power to females.

The Labour Party isn't protecting the sex based rights of women and girls ATM. So this seems a bit incoherent coming from them.

I think @dishranawaywithespoon said it best, we can be against the thinking behind the abortion, but not be against the actual abortion.

If we start getting in to reasons, it becomes murky. Should you abort for a disability? What if it's a mild disability? What if people disagree about what disabilities are mild? What if the reason is "financial reasons"? Is that really a good reason in the UK, as realistically one wouldn't become destitute and starve to death. Btw I don't agree with these arguments, but I see how some people could make them. I don't think someone's reasons can be judged.

Look at it this way - if someone really thinks that way, obviously they have many things to work out and maybe shouldn't be a parent at this time. Really the reason is "psychological issues" - and no one would disagree with this as a reason.

Also, although sex preference has historically and still in countries such as India been for a boy, in the west currently there seems to be a slight preference for girls.

@BarrackerBarmer
You have to push your thinking to its conclusion, not stop at 'I don't like this.'
Do you dislike it ENOUGH to criminalise a woman for accessing her own medical record? Do you dislike it enough that you support criminalising a woman for her own termination? Do you dislike it enough that you would force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term that you KNOW she doesn't want? Do you dislike it enough that it becomes a more important principle than a woman's bodily autonomy?
I do understand the repercussions of what I'm saying and find them horrific and heartbreaking but unfortunately also necessary unless we as a state condone abortions of fetuses based on sole the fact they are female. If a woman chooses to get pregnant knowing that the law will not allow her to abort a fetus of the undesired sex then I don't think this is the same as treating a woman as breeding stock. The state doesn't force people to breed and abortion would still be available for unwanted pregnancies, it's only where the abortion is desired solely on the basis of sex that this becomes an issue.

There is no "right" answer and I detest the fact that this even exists as an issue. Like I stated in my earlier post, if there was a realistic chance that we could just eradicate or at least lessen the misogyny that motivated these abortions then of course I would opt for this, but I don't think that this is going to happen for a long time. So of the frankly totally undesirable options left on the table, I would outlaw abortions based on sex.

The moment you decide a woman's rights are forfeit because you think it will create a better society for women's rights, you have lost your way, and badly.

Brilliantly put. Well said.

I don't view it as "pro-choice but...", rather that choosing a sex-selective abortion is not generally a free choice. So I don't see a contradiction in being pro-choice for individual women (ie bodily autonomy), while disagreeing with the concept of sex-selective (misogynistic) abortion on a societal level. Iyswim?

This has been fascinating and really got me thinking.

I’m pro-choice. I’m slso sad we live in a society that hates females as much as it does, to the extent parents will abort female foetuses.

My energies need to go to changing that, not restricting abortion in any way.

Acceptable reasons a woman may give to justify the abortion she seeks:

1. Because I want to end this pregnancy, now.

The end.

Acceptable reasons for forcing a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy to term and compelling her to give birth to a child she doesn't want?

Acceptable legal punishment for a woman who has an abortion for 'reasons' other people don't like? What shall we do to these women? Fine them? Imprisonment? Take their existing children away? Wondering how we contemplate that.

Two women in a waiting room awaiting their misoprostol pill at 11 weeks pregnancy. One of them should be punished, the other we will march for her rights to take it?

How does this actual, legal policing of women's bodies work, when we really start giving these proposed laws teeth?

Yes, that is the only reason why a woman should have an abortion. And the woman should never have to go through the system already in place.

I said in a previous post:

Men are the sex who should be responsible for the control of fertility.

What I meant though was the control of their own rampant fertility. Of course men want to control women's fertility. They are the ones who make the laws.

Control the woman. Control the status quo.

I agree, OP. It's difficult

I oppose the burkha but I also support women's rights to dress as they wish

"To abort girls because the culture places no value on women is sickening. It comes from the same place as violence against women, beating up women. That's why it feels wrong. "

So force the families to have the baby girls
Who will have "no value"
And whatever migth flow from that (you mention VAW)

Why?

WHO does it benefit to force women to give birth to babies that they know are going to have an awful time, that they may be punished for having, to have girls coming into existence to know from day 1 that they have "no value"

WHO does this benefit exactly?

As per my PP and lots of others, this is not the way to tackle misogyny.
You need to change the CAUSE, not fiddle around with the symptoms (and in the process remove some rights from women because that makes sense when trying to tackle misogyny?????????)

Call me cynical but the latest Labour Party announcement has PR pawprints all over it - they seem to be looking for ill thought out "quick wins to win women over" - like tacking misogyny as hate crime onto upskirting at the last minute, but not committing to a biological definition of woman. Then this about sex-based abortion.

I agree with Barracker et al re policing women's choices and bodies are not the way to go. If this is an issue and women are being culturally coerced to abort females, then interventions similar to those around DV need to be formulated and implemented.

I've seen no substantive discussion in the press, no stats - only this thread on here trying to tease out the complexities at play.

It looks and feels like PR sound bites looking for policy, rather than the other way round.

Just reading BBC article:

""No wonder they're resorting to sex-selection abortion because they've got no choice," she says. "They don't want to be homeless, they don't want their marriage to fail - all because they couldn't give birth to a boy."

This won't go away. They STILL won't have given birth to a boy.

The pressure on women from some cultures to give birth to sons is immense. If you take away their ability to terminate a pregnancy for reasons of sex-selection, you'll be condemning them to being impregnated, maybe forcibly, over and over again until they get it "right" and have a boy. What if three or four daughters are born in the meantime, what's going to happen to these unwanted girls? In my view, until daughters are valued as highly as sons, restricting abortion in this way will just lead to a rise in infanticide and child neglect. Far better to end the pregnancy in the relatively early stages than to go down that road.

Spot on womanformallyknownaswoman

Saw a picture of Corbyn today gurning next to a placard saying 'all menstrual products should be free' and thought something very similar.

How stupid do they think we are?

All of these issues will go away anyway once most women are the newfangled brave stunning type so beloved of the Labour Party and the old fashioned problematic cunty type have died out.

I'm sure that's how it works, isn't it?