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/

But access before isn't always possible. In fact generally, the worse the situation, the less likely a pregnant woman or girl will be capable of accessing abortion early, due to a variety of factors.

We live in an imperfect world, where we have to weigh bad against bad. So we need to decide - which is worse? That women and girls who are the victims of rape and incest should be forced to either bear their rapist's child or go up on trial for a late term abortion, or that very rarely, a late term abortion occurs and isn't prosecuted? (Hopefully, the woman or girl would be referred to the health system if it were discovered, and she would be given appropriate support, rather than imprisoned.)

Personally I would prefer that occasionally an unwanted unborn child has their (likely miserable, abusive, given the situation) life ended before it begins, than that women and girls be forced to give birth in horrific circumstances.

I understand this and I will say I haven't fully sorted out my views...

Are you certain most late term abortions are due to rape? This study argues no.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https%3A%2F%2Fpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Farticles%2FPMC6457018%2F%23%3A~%3Atext%3DHowever%2C%2520while%2520the%2520occasional%2520politician%2520or%2520news%2Cobvious%2520for%2520decades%3A%2520most%2520late-term%2520abortions%2520are&ved=0CAEQ1fkOahcKEwiYscHG8bCTAxUAAAAAHQAAAAAQBA&opi=89978449

She's doing something to her body that will kill the foetus within, yes.

Just as when women smoke or drink during pregnancy, they do something to their body that affects the foetus. But it's their body, and they have the autonomy to do so.

We're now moving dangerously towards the 'women of childbearing age shouldn't be allowed to smoke or drink, just in case they're pregnant and don't know it yet' argument.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/world/who-sexist-nhs-banning-pregnant-women-alcohol-b941139.html

Who has said that a 14 year old girl who has been raped by her father should not be permitted an abortion?

I know not everyone has received an education in critical thinking or in reasoned debate, but making hyperbolic arguments that appeal only to emotion is no way to have this discussion.

I think it's too much to say essentially the child's life wouldn't be worth living so they may as well have life ended at full term.

You can argue for decriminalisation without saying the life of the baby wouldn't be worth living if they weren't aborted.

Do you believe in personal responsibility for anything, other than towards oneself?

Alcohol and drugs aren't definitely going to kill a foetus though, and that is not the purpose of taking them. Abortion is different.

Yes, CSA happens all too often but rape relayed abortion (let alone late term is relatively rare).

And let's face it, a rapist father is more likely to ensure his victim gets an early abortion so his abuse isn't discovered.

The 'right to bodily autonomy' is purely conceptual. It is an ideological article of faith. A mantra .In practice before we act we consider many factors other just our own immediate self interest ( well, most people tend to, anyway) - such as the wider implications of our actions and the ethics of them.

I don't think most of them are. But I think some of them will be.

But I'm not sure I trust an American study on abortions after 20 weeks, nor do I think it's particularly applicable given the difficulty for women to access or fund abortion in the USA, with ability to pay, lack of insurance, and access, all being labelled as contributing factors.

I will note however that one of the quoted studies says:

"Later abortion recipients experienced logistical delays (e.g., difficulty finding a provider and raising funds for the procedure and travel costs), which compounded other delays in receiving care. Most women seeking later abortion fit at least one of five profiles: They were raising children alone, were depressed or using illicit substances, were in conflict with a male partner or experiencing domestic violence, had trouble deciding and then had access problems, or were young and nulliparous."

So, do we want to force women who are mostly either young, in poverty, experiencing domestic violence, depressed, on drugs, or single mothers, to give birth, when they don't want the child, but most likely won't give it up for adoption? Do we think that it will it benefit anyone to criminalise late term abortion? Or would approaching the situation from a health and social support perspective be more useful?

So? Alcohol and drugs can cause life-long disabilities. Is that okay to deliberately inflict on a child, in your opinion?

Where do we draw the line?

You have. If she's past 24 weeks. Right?

Why are you looking at American statistics? In the UK legal abortion within limits has long been a settled matter.

So you support government-enforced mandatory blood and bone marrow donation, I presume?

Ask the previous poster! They're the one who shared the study, not me. I in fact said in my comment that I don't think the study is particularly applicable.

Unfortunately, I think that has to be the case..because of the importance of the wider implications. Not everything revolves around one individual. And of course, the father would have to be prosecuted.

I thought ( but could be wrong) that a rape incest victim girl/woman, or very young teenager, presenting with a late term pregnancy, no doubt because of very difficult circumstances, and wanting an abortion, might in practice be treated by doctors as being in grave danger of harm, meaning the baby could be killed so the mother’s well being could take precedent.

(As I recall this was the case with someone I knew who was way too young even though she had not been raped.)

No, I don't...because that really is a matter of one's own body. Same as i don't support mandatory vaccination.

What a monstrous stance to take.

I cannot be bothered arguing with someone who believes something so rankly misogynistic.

Using words such as 'monstrous' is doing your argument no favours. Emotive argument is not going to win the day when it comes to wider and societal ethics.

One can feel empathy for the young girl and the awfulness of her situation, but still respect the wider ethical dimensions involved.

No, a lot has to be done to the baby to kill and get it out. It isn’t just done to the mother.

I don't understand how this will work in practice.

Late self inflicted abortions will produce a dead baby. Probably in the family home.

If this cannot be investigated, due to potential distress, what is stopping someone having a home birth and killing the baby 2 days later?

What if the drugs dont kill the foetus but do cause the birth of a live baby and then it dies because of neglect?

What about all the other distressing deaths that might occur in the family home (clumsy 3 yo fell down the stairs again!) Should they be ignored also?

As an aside not all adopted children have such horrendous lives that being aborted would have been a better option.

Quite, a surgical abortion can involve the disection of the foetus, or at least suctioning it to remove it from the woman's womb.

One could very easily argue that at that degree of gestation, it would do minimal extra harm to allow the pregnancy to continue for a few more weeks, until the foetus could be safely born. After all, we don't murder people just because they're causing someone emotional harm.

It's a morally inconsistent stance to take, and requires a woman to somehow prove that she's been raped or abused, and is therefore worthy of being granted autonomy over her own body. Because it's not about the foetus being a living human, at that point - if that were the case, it would only be permissable to abort were the mother in imminent physical danger, or the baby non-viable.

If it's acceptable sometimes, then the logic is entirely based around whether or not society thinks the woman is suffering enough to be permitted to commit what is otherwise considered murder. I think that's pretty gross for a variety of reasons.

That's not true in the case of late term self abortions. But yes, in legal late term abortions for medical or other reasons, I believe they do stop the foetus's heart and induce labour, after which the baby is birthed in the usual way.