New Minister for Women - Maria Caulfield - is pro life.

[ArabellaScott]

www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/anger-as-mp-who-suggested-cutting-abortion-time-limit-is-made-minister-for-women/ar-AA13vIjr?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=af0ca7de70284591967a666f2eeebfad

'The Lewes MP has previously come under fire for arguing babies born at as little as 18 weeks “grow up to live long, healthy lives like the rest of us”,'

I thought it was Women & Equalities, has that changed?

You put things better than I can, Mangyinseam. I agree, it is a real conflict of rights and the intellectual dishonesty around this is not conducive to sound political argument IMO. The law currently acknowledges this conflict by not making abortion legal but merely not subject to punishment under certain circumstances.

‘Pro-life’ is not just positive spin and to suggest it is is to ignore their argument. Calling it ‘anti-choice’ is like calling women rights ‘anti-trans’ and refusing discussion #nodebate. The pro-life perspective at the extreme is that life begins at conception and once life has begun the next step is why should that life have less value than the woman’s? However, the reality is most people do not think IVF embryos in a petri-dish, or unimplanted fertilised eggs in the reproductive tract, as ‘life’. And nor would they accept a full term baby of a mother in labour as not being ‘life’. Most people sit between these extremes and viability makes sense as it is, in theory, the stage where the mother no longer needs to be part of the equation; if the mother no longer wishes to be pregnant or their health is at risk from pregnancy then the baby can survive alone - so let it survive. But, of course, whilst a baby may be born at 24 weeks to protect the health of the mother, it is not considered acceptable to purposefully give birth to such a premie because you don’t want to be pregnant and inflict those risks on a child. The mother’s health is generally considered paramount until the baby is born - but the babies health is not ignored. If you are on medication or need treatment then most women will want to know about the impact on their baby. Maternity law also acknowledges risks to a baby before it is born.

My point is, most people are much more nuanced on this than ‘abortion up to the moment of birth’ or ‘never abort and if the mother dies so be it’.

It's more proof as if it was needed that the Tories don't give a shit about women's rights.

There is no such thing as "pro-life" - that's dodgy American spin for anti-abortionism. Anyone using the term should be ashamed with themselves for being so manipulative.

Any term could be considered manipulative by someone who disagrees with it.

I support a reduction in abortion time limits, would prefer no abortions but accept sooner provision is needed. So I guess I'm partially in the pro-life camp (though not to the extreme end).

I don't consider myself anti choice. I just believe that the choosing needs to happen earlier preferably at the time of choosing to risk parenthood by having sex (which is the point we accept that men must choose), or if not, in the first trimester.

I consider the term 'forced birther' both manipulative and rather silly. Once a woman is pregnant, birth is an inevitably (except for surgical abortions). A miscarriage is contractions and birth, so is a medical abortion. In both cases a woman goes through the physical act of giving birth, even if what she gives birth to isn't alive or viable.

Each side of this has determined what they want to call themselves - and both think the other side's naming is manipulative. I think it's better to stick to the terms we've got, or you'll end up with very emotive and manipulative terms used.

Completely agree with @DidDidILetHerDown, who basically said everything I wanted to say, but better. I'll go back to my coffee now. Have a great day everyone.

Let's stick with "pro-abortion access" and "anti-abortion access." Then the people who just want to quibble with time limits can say they are pro-abortion access but have a concern about x, y, or z, and those who are anti-abortion access can avoid beating around the bush. Everyone's a winner.

Nothing has been stifled. Most people are completely aware of the implications and effects of abortion law, and the UK has a pretty settled position on a woman's right to abortion.

I think both sides could do with trying to see it from the other perspective, and maybe seeing part the ridiculous caricatures that people build up in their minds of today on the other side of this.

Pro life doesn't mean sexist woman hater, who wants to control women's bodies.

Pro choice doesn't mean they agree with killing babies.

We see the caricatures, because it's easy to demonize them. I'm pro life, but I do get the other side. I get that it's bloody unfair that women get pregnant that don't want to (and some women desperately want to but can't). I get that being forced by biology into having a child is unfair, and that men often get off lightly, and it's often left to us. I do feel that rage. It's our bodies that are left disfigured and broken, our careers that are often left in tatters. I don't get how anyone can look at a near viable fetus and think it's nothing, but I do get the enormous sacrifices as women that we make, and the horror of that being forced on someone.

I'm a liberal, gender critical feminist, not particularly religious, anti death penalty, pro a good welfare state, pro same sex marriage, reasonably pro drug liberalisation. I'm not pro life because I want to control women, but because I believe the unborn acquire a moral right to exist at some stage, and should be protected.

I think most people are somewhere in the middle of the debate, seeing t need for abortion provision, but with time limits. Something that gives the woman the opportunity to end a pregnancy, but recognises increasing personhood by the end of pregnancy. Both sides pretending that you have to be at one extreme is harmful, and doesnt reflect how people think.

If we could take some of the anger, and name calling out of this, maybe both sides could pour their passion into science, to ensure that every pregnancy conceived is a wanted one.

I expect my Women's minister to be pro women. Not a "voice for the unborn".

I think most people are somewhere in the middle of the debate, seeing t need for abortion provision, but with time limits. Something that gives the woman the opportunity to end a pregnancy, but recognises increasing personhood by the end of pregnancy. Both sides pretending that you have to be at one extreme is harmful, and doesnt reflect how people think.

I agree and I’ve had two terminations. I really don’t like the way the positions are being framed. I absolutely agree with time limits. Most countries have them, and I think 24 weeks is plenty of time. There’s always exceptions for medical reasons and I don’t see it changing here. Our culture is very different from the US. They just voted for the TEMA so I don’t feel it’s a valid threat right now but like with all our rights we should always keep up with any movements in this area. I don’t particularly think this woman’s appointment is appropriate though, but then there are plenty of GPs, nurses and other doctors who won’t help their patients in these circumstances.

Pro-life is an un-nuanced position, as is pro-choice. Say what you mean, and you would avoid tribalism and forced teaming at the same time.

I'm at the turn this thread has taken.

As if changing the labels people use, will make me more likely to support a reduction in the access to free, safe abortion for any woman who for any reason finds herself with an unwanted pregnancy in this country.

It won't.

HTH.

And the new Welfare Chief, Mel Stride, is pro cutting maternity benefits.

Can you see what it is yet?

Ofgs

Viability is not a red herring, it it what makes abortion widely acceptable. Personally I feel the limit for abortions for non medical reasons should be reduced to 22 or 23 weeks. That does not mean I have any interest in removing abortion rights completely, but a potentially viable fetus should have some rights too and the limit on that is too close to the social abortion limit.

Doctors should not be trying to lower viability further, however distressing it is for those who deliver before 23 weeks the baby has little prospect of a good life.

Yep, it's pretty clear.

I'm in the 'as early as possible, as late as necessary' camp for abortion.

I know it's not a popular position, but no woman makes a decision to have a later term abortion lightly. It's nearly always because the woman is in denial following being raped, is living in a chaotic, possibly DA, home situation with young children and can't get to appointments etc.

There's a very moving document called '32 reasons why' published by either Marie Stokes or BPAS which details anonymously the situations of women who present at 20+ weeks, some of who are over the 24 week cut off by a day or so. I can't find it at the moment, but will try to later on.

Talking about a foetus' 'personhood' is legally problematic - a foetus doesn't have the legal rights of a person, but it does from the second it is born of course. If you agree with the right to abortion at any gestation if the foetus has abnormalities, that's effectively saying that a foetus with Down's syndrome is less of a person than a foetus without genetic abnormalities. Again, problematic.

I don't think there's any appetite at all to extend or abandon the cut off time for abortions on social grounds btw. Just putting this out there.

This^
its anti abortion not ‘pro life’

It's a BPAS doc, but I think I won't be able to link as I can only find it as a download.

I think if you google '32 reasons not to lower the abortion time limit BPAS' it shoudl come up.

Thanks ArabellaScott. I remember having difficulties downloading it before and that explains it.

Yes, it does come up.

@Sundaymorningtoday That is rubbish. Some of the genetic abnormalities are incompatible with life, some reduce the quality of life of the child, all have different implications for the rest of the family. It simply recognises that once a foetus becomes viable it also needs to be considered. Not everyone decides to abort Downs syndrome babies.

Btw I downloaded the BPAS document. Instead of teaching children they can be born in the wrong body they need much better advice on what to do and where to go if there is a possibility of pregnancy.

This. Discussion is allowed. People with other opinions are allowed to hold posts in government.

If she wants to open the debate that's fine and healthy. It actually makes abortion more secure not less - making it no debate makes it a political football - because opponents can see that the nuances are considered they have less leverage with the undecided.

There is no majority in parliament for an erosion of women's rights on this and is never likely to be. Again, as with race, people needs to stop confusing us with the USA. We have a different history of religion and religious attitudes here, lead by the indolent and pluralistic Church of England who have not been to the stake for an opinion for around 500 years (I don't mean we're all members of the CofE just that their historic low key views lead to low key public opinion overall; we don't really have a concept of public morals for example). There are not enough people in the UK with a strong anti-abortion opinion for it to have some much coverage as it does. Let it go folks. Stop making it a 'thing' and it won't be one.

The right of women who have chosen an abortion to access clinics unmolested is a different thing and is something we should be concerned about. A buffer zone allowing both unmolested access and free speech beyond it is the right balance.