Really interesting post from Kathleen Stock, not sure I agree fully with every point, but mostly:
'Longish summary of responses to points offered on my timeline for full decriminalisation of abortion, even up to birth, using at-home abortion pills for non-medical reasons (which has just been voted for, absolutely crazily imo, by UK MPs)
a) You may not be able to know or say at what precise point some grains make a heap but you still know unambiguously when you can see a heap. Same goes for cells, and for baby. Late-term abortions kill babies. Viable babies. This position does not require there to have been a baby/human/person there all along. Pushing back on full decriminalisation is not arguing for no abortions ever. (Which obviously could be done, but I'm not doing it).
b) Babies at late term have unambiguous interests of their own. They are not just narcissistic extensions of mother. They are not parasites or invaders. They are human beings. They are dependent human beings and is weird to see feminists who talk about value of care and dependence become psychopathically detached about the value of the life of a dependent, viable baby because the mother doesn't want it. It sounds dementedly callous to try to deny the interests of babies in this sort of issue by defining them out of existence, or just ignoring the fact they do exist at all. If you said "yes, babies have been/ will be killed by use of at-home abortion pills for non-medical reasons, but that is less important than that their mothers don't face the stress of prosecution" I would at least respect the honesty.
c) The law against late-term abortions acts as a deterrent against mothers killing their babies. If you lift it, you will get more deaths. You say it’s only a few - is that really supposed to be an argument? And; If I am not supposed to care about “only a few” baby deaths, why am I supposed to care about only a few prosecutions?
Again, if you are reasoning like this, and especially if you are weighing it up only against the mother's alleged right to non-prosecution, then you have your priorities badly skewed, and have conveniently forgotten that deaths of babies are also involved. And while we are at it: how do you know it will only be a few baby deaths in years to come? Do you know what happens when new social norms get embedded around new technology, and other ones – say, around contraception – shift? The use of at-home abortion pills is relatively new, who knows where it will be in ten years time?
d) If you have to excuse the death of a baby by hyperbolically depicting the only sort of women who would ever have a late-term non-medical abortion as "desperate" and otherwise blameless, it's a tell for motivated reasoning. There are many kinds of women in the world, who act for many different kinds of reason. Do you think all infanticides or child murders are only carried out by "desperate" and otherwise blameless women? (If you do, probably stop reading, there is no hope for you.) There are also, of course, men in the world who can get their hands on abortion pills and force women to take them. Your backing of decriminalisation is making that more easy too.
e) It is fascinating that some of you think both of these things are true at the same time: a) “women should never be prosecuted for carrying out their own late-term abortions, even for non-medical reasons ’ and b) “people providing assistance for late-term abortions for non-medical abortions should still be prosecuted” (as they will continue to be). So you do think there is something wrong with these abortions then, do you? What? Could it be that a baby dies?
f) The idea that it is really important we repeal this law because of the possibility of false prosecution of women is bizarre (and again, the histrionic depiction focusing on "women who have suffered miscarriages being dragged away from their children in police vans in the middle of the night" etc is a tell, like you have to amp up the drama to make the point. Also, how interesting: suddenly it's ok to care about the interests of young dependent children again, is it? But I digress…) Anyway, let's apply this logic to rape law. We must repeal rape laws because falsely accused men are being dragged away from their children in the night.. um, no? The law has a point, it has a deterrent function, and that point is more important than the inevitable possibility of false prosecution given the existence of any law in the first place.
f) Those telling me that academics and NGOs have done all the thinking on this already and I should just outsource my brain to them are really having a laugh. I've looked at their arguments and do you know, it's really weird, but they don't talk about the baby's interests, even in late-term abortion for non-medical reasons. They just act like that issue isn't there. And it is.
g) The UK is not the US. With best will in the world, Americans reading their own issues into the UK situation is unhelpful.
There is no good case for full decriminalisation as voted for today. And there is no genuine political will for it either, because most people haven’t been slowly boiled in a vat of hyperliberal feminism and progressive technocracy like overheating frogs, until they can't tell which way is up. All this will do is further undermine the legitimacy of feminism generally (by association, even if some feminists are actually against it) and also undermine public trust in lawmakers (How could this have been decided so quickly without any proper consultation or discussion of a wide range of views? Why wasn’t it in the manifesto, if it is so important?).'