Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Abortion Bill

127 replies

Incredulosity · 31/01/2019 10:33

Would you have supported this Bill going through?

Anyone who thinks this is in anyway ok seriously needs to have a look into the conscience.

OP posts:
MargueritaPink · 01/02/2019 13:53

Then they try to conflate it with abortion rights during the early second trimester, which is their segue into just outlawing it altogether

Kathy Tran and the pro abortion to term supporters are setting up a perfect own goal to support this.

userschmoozer · 01/02/2019 13:59

Don't quote me out of context.

MargueritaPink · 01/02/2019 14:07

Don't order me about
Here is your full quote

No it isnt. A fundamental part of actual feminism is learning about female socialisation, and how its used both to hold us back, and as a stick to beat us with.
As an example, spend a few days on AIBU and look at how many women are uncomfortable about using 'no'. They've been taught not just that saying 'no' is rude, but thats its unacceptable to have boundaries

Worrying about what other people think of us when we are doing nothing wrong is unhealthy

My response remains the same. In the context of this thread arguing for full term abortion for no reas is basking in self- righteous ideology no matter how extreme, unreasonable, unrealistic or damaging.

PineapplePower · 01/02/2019 14:37

Kathy Tran said this in the Washington Post: “I should have said: ‘Clearly, no, because infanticide is not allowed in Virginia, and what would have happened in that moment would be a live birth.’ ”

.... yes, Kathy Tran, that is what you should have said, ffs. People are already very confused about what a third trimester abortion (vanishingly rare procedure for an unviable fetus)

GunpowderGelatine · 01/02/2019 15:19

@MargueritaPink I don't think my opinion that a woman should be able to abort at any stage for any reason (note not "no reason" as you incorrectly quoted) is going to change anything in anti-choice countries. I'm just stating my opinion and I don't really understand your point TBH.

GunpowderGelatine · 01/02/2019 15:20

It's odd that someone who claims an interest in the progression of women cares not what other women think of them

Being a woman doesn't mean I'm going to care that you disagree with me. What an odd stance

GunpowderGelatine · 01/02/2019 15:26

And FWIW I think the UK has it right about abortion laws - I'm not campaigning for the 24 week rule to be extended, as in certain cases abortions can be performed to full term. However I still believe in a woman's right to have an abortion at any time for any reason because we must always remember that her life and choices trump that of the foetus/baby (whatever word you prefer) that is not yet independent of her

MargueritaPink · 01/02/2019 15:31

I don't think my opinion that a woman should be able to abort at any stage for any reason (note not "no reason" as you incorrectly quoted) is going to change anything in anti-choice countries. I'm just stating my opinion and I don't really understand your point TBH

You are splitting hairs on any reason/ no reason if the reason is at 24 weeks plus I don't want to have this baby.

You are absolutely correct your stance won't change anything in countries where abortion is banned except any anti- abortionist seeing the sort of opinions expressed on here is likely to have their views validated. If you can't see the damage done by the likes of Kathy Tran I'm not sure I can explain it more clearly.

I don't think your hardline ideological stance does abortion campaigns any good at all.

ElonMask · 01/02/2019 16:26

No one has a right to a morally objectionable medical procedure that requires funding from the state. You can't simply state it's a right. It's very much a privilege.

AssassinatedBeauty · 01/02/2019 16:39

It's only morally objectionable in your opinion. Clearly others disagree.

Oldermum156 · 01/02/2019 16:46

@MargueritaPink

You just confirmed everything I said - conservative painting women as a bunch of slavering psychopaths who are itching to abort at 9 months for no reason at all, in spite of zero evidence this has ever happened or will ever happen. You have a dim view of women, aka misogyny. If you can't talk about abortion rationally there's no point having a conversation with you about it.

ElonMask · 01/02/2019 16:46

It's only morally objectionable in your opinion.

It's hardly just me though is it ? There are surely conditions under which you yourself would consider it morally objectionable as well.

Oldermum156 · 01/02/2019 16:52

If I considered my personal abortion prospect to be morally objectionable I wouldn't have it. I don't presume to order other women's personal lives about. That's the whole point.

ElonMask · 01/02/2019 16:52

slavering psychopaths who are itching to abort at 9 months for no reason at all

Well, that seems like a fair and reasonable summary Hmm

FloralBunting · 01/02/2019 16:54

MargueritaPink is pro choice. Her point was that this kind of argument from extremes would harm the rights of women to access abortion by painting pro choice as the right to kill a baby in the birth canal.

ElonMask · 01/02/2019 16:54

I don't presume to order other women's personal lives about. That's the whole point

But you do, unless you support women's right to do anything they want with their body ?

FloralBunting · 01/02/2019 16:57

Look, I get the ethical stance of not judging another woman's choices, really I do. But if you want to make it easy to take pro choice legislation down, then refusing to address these kinds of possible consequences of that legislation is going to do it.

ElonMask · 01/02/2019 16:59

painting pro choice as the right to kill a baby in the birth canal.

That is what they want though, so it's not really a misrepresentation.

AssassinatedBeauty · 01/02/2019 17:06

My point was that it is not universally agreed that it is morally objectionable.

There are two separate aspects to this - what people personally believe and agree with, and what could be a productive compromise to gain widespread agreement on. I think on a feminist chat forum its reasonable for women to express their own beliefs in this area, whilst discussing the wider legal situation.

GunpowderGelatine · 01/02/2019 17:11

So basically pro-choicers are expected to not act pro-choice so that they don't turn off the anti-choice folk?

GunpowderGelatine · 01/02/2019 17:12

No one has a right to a morally objectionable medical procedure that requires funding from the state. You can't simply state it's a right. It's very much a privilege

Abortions are o LG "morally objectionable" in your opinion. Some people think blood transfusions are immoral - doesn't mean people don't have a right to one

FloralBunting · 01/02/2019 17:13

My point was that it is not universally agreed that it is morally objectionable.

AssassinatedBeauty, your problem there is that killing a child who is passing through the birth canal is pretty universally objected to on moral grounds. Even the speaker in the video has admitted it and said that she should have answered differently.

TakenForSlanted · 01/02/2019 17:14

That is what they want though, so it's not really a misrepresentation.

Indeed!

In very general, I'm just very bothered by the entire framing of the abortion debate as one of "at what point do the personal rights of the foetus to life prevail". Let me explain:

Literally in no other context at all does society demand that any person put up with sustained infringement on their bodily autonomy in order to keep another individual alive. Yes, it's illegal to actually kill someone for malicious reasons. It is, however, legal to defend yourself against physical assault even if the assaulter ends up dead, so long as no excessive force is applied. We literally grant the deceased the right to hold on to all their body parts even when harvesting their organs would save the lives of multiple living individuals.

I'm absolutely willing to have the debate over whether or not foetal viability should mean that a foetus has the right to be retrieved from a woman's body alive or not. Either way you end up with a series of uncomfortable ethical questions. In that sense, I'm willing to accept foetal personhood. It doesn't matter to whether or not pregnant women should be the only humans, alive or dead, not to have the right to deny another individual use of their body parts in order for that other individual to stay alive. That's just utterly ludicrous!

Sorry, rant over, but this still pisses me off 15 years after first having this debate in earnest.

FloralBunting · 01/02/2019 17:16

basically pro-choicers are expected to not act pro-choice so that they don't turn off the anti-choice folk?

In a febrile political atmosphere where the right to access abortion in the US seems to somewhat precarious, I'd suggest that taking the most extreme pro choice position is not going to help the situation.

GunpowderGelatine · 01/02/2019 17:17

Sorry, who has said they want "babies killed in the birth canal"?? No one. What I want is a woman's right to choose for herself and for women to be trusted with their own choices. What those choices are are none of my business and another woman's abortion will literally never affect anyone but her, and is certainly not my business nor yours