Abortion Bill

[Incredulosity]

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.

I don't actually care if that doesn't persuade the group of people who disagree or who would only accept a restricted approach. I don't think that women's lives should be put at risk to keep other people feeling more comfortable about something that doesn't affect them in any way.

And I appreciate your integrity to the philosophical position of a women's complete autonomy over her body. No snark intended in that statement at all, I honestly understand the position.

But I'm not suggesting that you should become an evangelist for your beliefs, I'm pointing out that the position of any time, any reason is far more extreme than will ever have overwhelming sway in practical terms and actually plays really badly in the middle ground that may well be crucial in gaining support for retaining the access to abortion earlier in the pregnancy.

I guess what I'm saying is, you don't have to try and persuade someone like me, because our starting points are really different - but if you dig in you aren't going to persuade most of the women who aren't anti-abortion but have significant reservations about late term abortions and who form a large contingent of influence on the legislature.

Tbh, it's the mirror position to the pro life campaigners who push for a total ban on legal abortion for any reason at all - it plays very well in certain circles, but it will do nothing to achieve the aims of less abortions, or less women at risk, because it's never going to persuade enough people.

I have read this entire thread, I am genuinely super confused about why the discussion has ended up where it has when the original bill being argued was specifically saying that there would be no limit to abortion if the mother's life was at risk or she would be severely compromised (physical or mental health) by continuing the pregnancy. Yes, technically, this means that it 'could' be legal for an abortion to take place during labour...but technically that's what UK law is too, right now.

Despite this being UK law, and it having been UK law, for a while...the number of abortions happening during labour is zero, ever.

The law still relies on a doctor making that judgement, and as such they are required to follow their own ethical codes and standards.

I'm surprised that people disagree with a law that protects the lives and health of women, and that somehow supporting this law is seen as being totally on board with infanticide.

Detrimental to mental health could mean anything, how could you possibly measure that ? Would people who say as late as necessary themselves personally be willing to perform such a procedure or even the most significant part of it ? Because if not I don't see how it is reasonable to expect that a supply of people willing to perform it must be found otherwise it's oppression.

No, I do agree with you that arguing for total abortion to term on demand is bad tactics and will not fly.

I do want, though, to call attention again to the very high maternal morbidity and mortality rates in the US and to the lack of national healthcare. It is a fact that pregnancy in the US is risky -- you cannot look at the situation here and say there is not the slightest indication of risk simply by the fact of pregnancy. Even with the most affordable health insurance, one still has to meet a $6000 deductible before the insurance pays one dime. That makes getting maternity care very difficult, which is a prime cause of risk in pregnancy.

But I'm not at all saying others want women to die. I'm speaking from a more philosophical level and peering into both the past and the future.

Currently, rightwingers in the US are in great distress over falling birth rates among citizens. We've had similar issues in our past over controlling who has babies, and when. US history with regard to women and pregnancy is fairly ugly, including the forced pregnancies and trial for murder after stillbirth our English foremothers faced, most of whom were not Puritans but prostitutes and thieves who chose indentured servitude in America rather than death at the gallows. I haven't even touched on the horrors of forced pregnancy black women have faced in the US, and then the horrors of forced sterilisation.

I think that American women citizens need to know explicitly that the state regards her pregnancy as a time in her life when she gives up certain rights in favor of the rights of another. I want that stated clearly, not blurred into soft focus.

After all, it is on that premise that the state imprisons women who endanger a pregnancy by using drugs or alcohol. It is on that premise that women who miscarry are investigated for murder, and at times jailed while that investigation proceeds. These are things happening right now, in the US.

The pro-life position removes rights from women in favor of another. That IS what you're in favor of. People are simply arguing about the date upon which that happens.

Elon I'd imagine you'd just ask the woman? Surely someone saying she's not 'suffering enough' is an opinion that you, as someone outside her own brain and body, are entitled to hold but not entitled to prevent something based on.

Again, I'd imagine that much like medical professionals here can conscientiously object to abortions then not all providers would need to offer those procedures.

I am not medically trained, if I were I would use my medical judgement and morality to ensure all my patients were treated with respect. No, I probably wouldn't perform an abortion "during labour" as I would not need to, given that the baby was being born.

Subtle reminder that in situations where a pregnant woman and baby are both in distress the woman is prioritised. Obviously they try to save both, but if it's one or the other they save the mother first. This is no different, we must prioritise adult women over foetuses.

I'm against abortion unless for medical reasons (I had one actually) which is why I wouldn't abort. That is my decision over my body. I think it's fucking arrogant that some people think that they have a say about other womens lives and bodies. As early as possible, as late as necessary. I will support any woman who needs an abortion at any gestation.

Well, please take care in ascribing a position to me, as I'm almost certain I don't hold the pro life views you're familiar with from much of the movement, especially in the US.

You're quite right that the situation in the US for women is horrendous wrt maternal health and frankly loads of other things too. One of the things I despise about the US pro life movement is the streak in it that objects to abortion on the basis that they have to pay for it through taxation, because obviously the kind of person who wants to restrict rights on the basis of cost will also refuse to pay for measures that would reduce women feeling the need for abortion due to financial pressures and lack of healthcare. It's been on display in this thread.

I accept that you and I will not agree on this, for me this is a competing rights situation and I have no easy answer to resolve it.

exploding I used to think that I wouldn't abort for any reason other than my own health/life being in danger, now I have come to realise that given my own health needs I would consider abortion for foetal abnormality. I think abortion is less cruel than giving a baby up for adoption because I don't feel able to meet its needs, that kind of rejection can cause lifelong harm.

That doesn't mean I think everyone should do that, or even that I think I am "right". It just means that I have made an assessment of what I feel would be best for me as an individual.

I think everyone should have that right, because otherwise you are forcing someone to do something with their body they do not want to do and that is morally always wrong.

Meant to add - believe it or not,I I am not motivated to control women, and I care very much that they have access to safe healthcare, so I'm not arguing in any kind of plan to make abortion unavailable - I'm telling you that compromise is the most likely way to keep women safe in this situation.

The pro-life position removes rights from women in favor of another.

How is it a "right" to have other people do stuff to your body ?

I will support any woman who needs an abortion at any gestation.

And just to be clear: without having to know the reason. It's no ones business if someone needs an abortion.

@loopsdefruit
i agree. Every woman can only make the decision for herself. Everyones situation is different.

It's no ones business if someone needs an abortion.

It is at least the business of the persons required to perform it and arguably of those who have to fund it.

[Flowers] Floral -- I like your posts on FWR and the "you" on my post came out badly; I was speaking generically not specifically. I can appreciate that you're not coming to this with control as a motive. I do have friends who hold your position; i do know there is genuine anguish.

I do not think, though, that ultimately that anguish is what's driving this politics in the US. The US government is not especially known for trepidation regarding the deaths of children, anywhere in the world.

The US government is not especially known for trepidation regarding the deaths of children, anywhere in the world.

I wish I could counter the point, but of course I can't.

No, I do agree with you that arguing for total abortion to term on demand is bad tactics and will not fly

It is a terrible tactic. To me it comes across as grandstanding. This for example I don't actually care if that doesn't persuade the group of people who disagree or who would only accept a restricted approach. I don't think that women's lives should be put at risk to keep other people feeling more comfortable about something that doesn't affect them in any way

To me it just says I'm right, I don't care how unreasonable, extreme or alienating my opinion is- I'm right and that's what matters.

And I'm very fed up at the constant suggestion that anyone who disagrees with this extreme view wants to put women's lives at risk.

I'm telling you that compromise is the most likely way to keep women safe in this situation

You have said so throughout, as I was trying to.

But compromise isn't good enough- compromise with the aim of securing something like mainland UK law isn't good enough. Only the ideological purity of abortion to term for any or no reason is good enough. Anything else means you want to control women or endanger women's lives.

I'm surprised that people disagree with a law that protects the lives and health of women, and that somehow supporting this law is seen as being totally on board with infanticide

How many times is this lie going to be peddled that refusing to accept abortion to term for any reason (or no reason) means one is against protecting the lives of women? No one has said that late term abortions should not be carried out in extreme circumstances.

The Bill being discussed, as indeed are many of the posters on here, are calling for abortion on demand up to 40 weeks, regardless of the circumstances. Some posters have then tried to argue but that would just be a legal technicality, it would never happen.

Marguerita No, it was not. That's what I mean, the changes to the already existing bill, the one being discussed in that video, just altered some wording to 1) reduce the number of doctors required to make a decision (from 3 to 1), and 2) to Remove any limit on abortion when the mother's life was in danger or when continuing the pregnancy would seriously damage a woman's physical or mental health.

The only people who brought up "abortion for any reason" are pro-life people, and people too dense to do any real research and take a short out-of-context youtube clip at face value.

theslot.jezebel.com/this-is-how-you-derail-any-conversation-about-later-abo-1832229126

If someone had to stand up and defend current UK law around abortion, they would also have to answer in the affirmative to the absurd question of whether a woman "could" legally decide during labour to have an abortion. The answer is yes, legally it is permitted, if the life or health of the mother is at risk. But again, just because it's isn't in the law that it can't happen, doesn't mean it ever has or will.

The text of the bill:

"The physician (and two consulting physicians certify) certifies and so (enter) enters in the hospital record of the woman, that in (their) the physician’s medical opinion, based upon (their) the physician’s best clinical judgment, the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or (substantially and irremediably) impair the mental or physical health of the woman.

The in brackets is the current wording, the out of brackets is the proposed new bill. I suppose you could argue that the "impair the mental or physical health" is subjective, but IMO that's a discussion for a woman to have with her doctor and has absolutely nothing to do with any of us. Who am I to judge if someone's mental health is damaged enough by continuing a pregnancy, who are you to?

Yes, loops, that was the wording under question in the video, and the speaker blundered in her response and gifted the pro life lobby with a juicy soundbite they will use endlessly. This has nothing to do with whether I am pro life or not, I only brought it up because I'm sometimes rather stupidly honest about my vantage point. I just pointed out that the pro choice movement really has to tread carefully given the current political climate in the US, and this won't be a win, however much you may be able to back up the belief in female autonomy.

floral I don't disagree with you, it sucks but sometimes you gotta play the game.

I do agree that Tran absolutely messed that up, although tbh it was a ridiculous question designed to provoke a "zomg liberals eat babies" response for the anti-choice lobby. Unfortunately it worked, if I'm honest in a similar situation I probably would have panicked and said similar to Tran. Technically she was correct, but that doesn't make what she said especially useful to her argument.

loops, that's genuinely all I was trying to say here. She must have known there would be questions like that - there kind of have to be questions like that because you can't just wave legislation through.

I can't emphasize enough that I know the US situation is horrible for many women, particularly wrt to maternal health etc. and that you need to be canny as fuck to work in the political climate there. Show a week link in the chain, it will be attacked, and there's a reason why some women are training to do certain things undercover if necessary.

Week = weak, obviously.