Bid in Lords to overturn move to decriminalise abortion for women

[IwantToRetire]

A landmark move to decriminalise women terminating their own pregnancies could be overturned as legislation is considered in the House of Lords.

In June, MPs in the Commons voted in favour of decriminalisation, with one saying it would remove the threat of “investigation, arrest, prosecution or imprisonment” of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy. ...

But, with the Bill making its way through the Lords, an amendment has been tabled to remove the relevant clause. ...

https://nation.cymru/news/bid-in-lords-to-overturn-move-to-decriminalise-abortion-for-women/

Read the enquiry report please.

I've explained in great detail in previous posts. Please read them if you want to understand further.

But that’s exactly the issue, that’s your personal belief, shaped by your own moral framework. Mine is different. Morality isn’t universal or objective, it’s subjective and varies from person to person. A belief is just that and it doesn’t become a universal truth just because you believe it strongly.

I don't think all morality IS subjective, nor should it be. By that logic, sexist and racist people could claim that disagreeing with sexism and racism is a subjective thing, etc

Yes it would be horrible for the child to be put in care, like I said, not in the mother or child's interest at all and completely avoidable. Whats the upshot of this so-called moral principle?

The upshot of this moral principle is that in my view it's morally wrong to take the life of a baby near full term who will soon be born.

By that logic, it could be argued that any child with prospects of going into care upon birth would be better off aborted, which obviously isn't right. We need to overhaul the care system & adoption system (recent mandates for ongoing contact with birth parents make it less likely for people to want to adopt, for one).

It’s a fair point, although I’m not sure racist and sexist ideas are really moral positions, I think they’re rooted in things like fear of difference, desire for dominance, social conditioning, or trying to justify existing power structures.

Well I'd agree with you. But I think that's the problem with morality being wholly subjective: some things cannot be. A racist or sexist person would probably see their ideas as a valid moral claim, even if we don't.

Do you not think racism and sexism are morally wrong?

Of course it is wrong, on every level.

Then I found your earlier post confusing.

In the context of whether morality is objective or not you seemed to be stating that racism and sexism were not "moral positions" - which I took to mean that you did not consider them to be "moral issues".

I presume I was mistaken and that you do in fact consider them both issues of morality?

Women in the UK should never give up the right to abortion. In Ireland we have abortion up to 12 weeks. People are already saying it was a mistake for people to vote in a referendum for abortion.
As early as possible, as late as necessary. Always.

Protect your rights.

Any thread on this topic is peppered with appeals to emotion, like "Ask any woman who's had a miscarriage / stillbirth, who's felt her baby moving inside her", etc. Also a smattering of Gilead-esque moralising about women's duty and destiny to gestate the nation's children.

For the record I've had multiple miscarriages, including 2nd trimester, and never managed to produce a live baby. I absolutely support women's freedom to terminate their pregnancies for whatever reasons they see fit.

Emotion has no place in law-making. Legislation must be based in pure, informed logic. Laws that are driven by petitioners' feelings tend to yield unwelcome side effects.

It can be said that the law reflects and shapes the nation's morality. We should be ever vigilant of religious 'moral' influence on the law, which criminalised male homosexuality and has been responsible for countless abuses of women. Remembering that it's only 12 years since gay men gained full legal equality, we shouldn't let such nonsense as the "womb of destiny" get even a look in the door. We are still on the journey of secular legislation; it needs consolidation not softening.

If the nation decides it needs more babies, it incentivises them with additional support. It doesn't force unwilling women to give birth!

On another personal note - I have extensive experience of pregnancy losses, mine and others'. I also have some experience of child deaths. They are different experiences. It's deeply dishonest to conflate them, and disrespectful to women who have suffered either.

And some don't become detectable until the last month of pregnancy.

What I mean is that there is no moral position or point of view that anyone can take which could justify racism or sexism. They are obviously both immoral.

That's why abortions for those sorts of abnormalities are available until birth. This amendment whether it passes or fails does not affect that whatsoever and neither would any change in the time limits that are used (though not originally intended) for on demand abortion. There are two parallel schemes in operation.

Yes, I'm just on a low-key mission to highlight how very unpredictable the business of creating a functioning human is. There's far too much googly-eyed romanticisation of pregnancy on these threads.

Others are doing it better than me, but I try to contribute my bit!

That's your view. It is not a given.

And it was available before, nothing unchanged there. Again, no need for a law change at all

If morality is subjective then anything goes. Just depends on the social context. Everything can be justified.

(I don’t believe in a moral order, humans construct morality)

Yes, I'm just on a low-key mission to highlight how very unpredictable the business of creating a functioning human is. There's far too much googly-eyed romanticisation of pregnancy on these threads.

Others are doing it better than me, but I try to contribute my bit!

Yeah, I think @Batties was being delightfully naïve there. Societies throughout history - and today - have deemed racism, sexism, disablism, homophobia, etc morally correct throughout history, even moral imperatives at times.

I disagree with you a bit, in that I think we do have some kind of hard-wired 'morality' which would've developed for the good of one's tribe. Tribal morality, though, can be utterly brutal. Now we have bigger societies and more complicated lives, we develop more sophisticated moral codes. They are still intended to help us live in harmony and for some kind of mutual benefit.

But there's no shortage of current societies upholding prejudices as moral truths.

What an awful thought. There are definitely bastards out there who would do this.

About two years ago a young teenager killed her newly born baby, which she had given birth to alone over night in the sitting room, after no one had known she was pregnant. She was charged with murder rather than infanticide (which has a different burden of proof), and certainly not let off. She was sent to prison rather than for psychiatric care. Many people on mumsnet were going on about what an evil murderess she was.

I wonder if people who are against a ban on late term abortions would think she was guilty of murder, or guilty of a form of late term abortion?

Yes, that right. This is a discussion forum. People disagree, especially when it comes down to matters of ethics.