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/

I imagine most women who don't abort a child won't adopt them out, however, just neglect, or potentially abuse them. I have to think that vulnerable women who are in the kinds of chaotic situations where they are unable to arrange access to early abortion, either due to drug issues, mental health issues, or other problems, are unlikely to organise the relinquishment of their child.

What im saying regarding the upshot is that for example if laws are written with good intentions but actually result in unfairness, then they are no good as laws and need rewriting. In the same vein if a moral principle held by a society only creates distress and suffering then doesn't it need revisiting? As pp said what was the point of moralising homosexuality? What is the point of morality? One is 'taking a life' whether the abortion is early, late or embryos not implanted during IVF are destroyed.

Why is it obviously wrong that a child going into care from birth would be better off aborted, if its own mother actually wants to abort it? (Clearly Im not talking about a third party taking that decision.)

There was a study out of Texas that examined missed abortions, eg women who intended to get abortions but didn’t for reasons like missed appointments, found they were past the limit, etc (this was prior to Roe v Wade being struck). They overwhelmingly decided to keep their child, so it would likely not be true that there would be a glut of children available for adoption or placed on a care home automatically. Your instinct is correct here.

Im also recalling that a lot of adoptions in the past were very coercive, as the baby trade was very lucrative in the past (and continues to be with international adoption)

In almost every circumstance it is going to be safer for a mother to have a termination than it is for her to continue with the pregnancy so there is always a justification for termination on medical grounds at any stage of pregnancy.

Oh, interesting! Thank you for that. And yes - a good point about the baby trade.

Obviously I'm not in favour of late term abortions, and I think there needs to be more done to make sure they can be avoided, with contraception and early abortion access...but I shy away from anything that means women will be criminalised for exercising bodily autonomy.

It seems far more reasonable to take the approach of providing intensive social support for any woman who is in a situation where she kills a viable foetus, or perhaps even an infant. Prevent it from reoccurring, and also give her support, without turning her into a criminal.

The idea of expecting women and girls to destroy their mental health, physical health, and their futures, all to save the lives of foetuses seems incredibly misogynistic, considering we don't even expect people to do something as small as donate blood to save actual, living people's lives, due to bodily autonomy.

Why is it obviously wrong that a child going into care from birth would be better off aborted, if its own mother actually wants to abort it? (Clearly Im not talking about a third party taking that decision

It feels eugenics-adjacent to a lot of people: like you are explicitly saying that it’s better off to not exist at all than to exist as a poor person or in a neglectful home (standards of which is going to be different due to cultural backgrounds as well).

Even I wouldn’t go as far as this. But it was the assumption of Margaret Sanger and other early 20th century eugenicists that you wanted to suppress the birth rates of ‘unfit’ people. I am conflicted: I wonder why we don’t just sterilize women who are homeless and/or severely mentally ill, who have child after child because they are unable or unwilling to prevent it. People will say it’s discriminatory towards the poor. But yet, attitudes like the above reveal that people really do think that it’s better to not exist than to be born into poverty or an unstable, neglectful home.

I don't think it's better not to exist than to be born into a neglectful or unstable home. But 'not-existing in the first place' is a value neutral state, while 'being neglected or abused' is negative.

So I do wonder why people fight so hard to criminalise women and girls for having late term abortions, when the likelihood is that many of them would be bringing an unwanted child into an unstable, neglectful, possibly abusive home, creating more suffering in the world.

Especially when so many of those people would make an exception for rape. It's morally incoherent. I can't understand it.

You're basically saying that past a certain point of gestation, a woman or girl should have her bodily autonomy stripped away, and no longer have the same rights as any other person. There is no other situation in which people have their bodily autonomy stripped away in order to save a life - no mandatory blood, bone marrow, or organ donation. So why should women have this inflicted on them?

She will have the same rights as any other WOMAN. There are no other situations that are comparable to pregnancy. Blood, bone marrow and organs are not independent life forms. Society doesn't 'inflict' this on women, biology does. If bodily autonomy really was a choice for women we'd bypass ALL of the biological bits and have the baby delivered by stork.

Sorry to go back in the thread but I have been thinking about this since yesterday and I also find it disturbing to read on a feminism board. In principle I get the 'with great power comes great responsibility' line but biologically and societally women do not have power and less so when pregnant. I agree that on a population level women have a unique and central role in human life; but they are more than 'carriers' of life, they are creators, bestowers, sustainers and nurturers of human life. A foetus is literally made out of the food a woman eats and her flesh, bone and blood. If a pregnant woman dies, her foetus dies in minutes without her oxygenated blood. I dont think that pregnancy is treated with such reverential status in our society that would make even 'soft' social mores about a woman's 'duty to the child inside her' appropriate, let alone 'hard' rules permitting the state to have ownership of women's foetuses for 'the greater good of the species'. We dont live in tribal or particularly collectivist societies where there is a balance of burden/benefit regarding children. Men can literally ejaculate and walk away and not even be held to providing materially for their children, let alone care. Mumsnet is literally a testament to this unfairness. What about the charity Pregnant then Screwed. Why then should women at a certain point of gestation be stripped of their bodily autonomy by the state due to their 'unique status' when they are not even respected for it?

So I presume you're against any abortion, then, if you're outright saying that women don't have bodily autonomy, and shouldn't have choice when it comes to pregnancy?

As for the rest of your argument:

But why don't we ensure that all humans donate blood and bone marrow when needed, whether they want to or not, to save lives, then? It's much, much, much less invasive, and would save the lives of so many people, with families and lives.

When bodily autonomy comes up against a foetus living or dying, you think bodily autonomy loses, right? So to be morally consistent, you'd have to be in favour of enforced blood and bone marrow donations that will save people's lives.

If you're not, then it's just misogyny driving your thought process, plain and simple.

Yes, there's something very sinister about the way women's wants and needs are so blithely brushed away in favour of benefiting the broader 'society' - and how? By birthing a baby she doesn't want? By being imprisoned for having a late term abortion? How do these things benefit 'society' exactly?

Your points about how women are trapped by a false pretence at reverence are very good - it reminds me of pro-lifers who proclaim every baby is precious and should be treasured, and then do nothing to improve the lot of children in poverty and dire situations. It's all about the children...but only at the expense of women - as soon as it stops negatively affecting women, people stop caring about said children.

You're basically saying that past a certain point of gestation, a woman or girl should have her bodily autonomy stripped away, and no longer have the same rights as any other person. There is no other situation in which people have their bodily autonomy stripped away in order to save a life - no mandatory blood, bone marrow, or organ donation. So why should women have this inflicted on them

You don’t have ‘bodily autonomy’ to demand an abortion at any gestation though. Thats just your personal values, but it’s not reflected in law. No doctor will abort a healthy child after 24 weeks for you.

It just doesn’t punish you any longer for taking it into your own hands and trying to terminate your own child at an advanced stage of pregnancy, which I find kind of horrible tbh. They could have squared this circle by stopping pills by post, but alas, they have not.

No doctor will abort a healthy child after 24 weeks for you.

That's not true. They will do so to prevent grave physical or mental injury to the mother, regardless of the foetus's health.

I do have to wonder though, in regards to this thread in general, why laws around abortion and a woman's bodily autonomy are so inconsistently and misogynistically applied, even by feminists.

Bodily autonomy is sacrosanct and people can't even be forced to give blood to save a full-blown life...unless a woman or girl is pregnant, in which case she loses her bodily autonomy to a twenty-five week foetus.

Foetuses are lives that deserve to be saved and to kill them is (nigh on) murder...unless their father was a rapist, in which case they deserve to die for his crimes.

None of it is consistent.

When bodily autonomy comes up against a foetus living or dying, you think bodily autonomy loses, right?

Yes. Within the parameters currently legislated for. I do not believe bodily autonomy as a philosophical belief is absolute and/or applicable equally in all scenarios.

Well human morality is inconsistent. Unless we are forced into a very strict religious perspective, we will all have very different ideas of where lines should be drawn.

Even on a thread full of feminists, there will be lively arguments in this space. Back in my home country, there are literally pro-life feminists (usually rabidly Catholic, but it is a whole thing)

So to be morally consistent, you'd have to be in favour of enforced blood and bone marrow donations that will save people's lives.

It does tend towards that, yes. But I think we should try to be consistent, because without consistency these kinds of moral positions become incoherent hypocrisy, very clearly rooted in bias - and thus without any merit.

Yes i can see that, although like Otterley said, not existing in the context of not even having been born is neutral, it's not saying that if someone's been abused they do not have a life worth living (to be clear, I definitely do not agree with that).

In cases of severely mentally ill/addicted mothers repeatedly having children that are taken into care i think it's extremely sad and difficult for both mothers and children, and there needs to be support to try and stop intergenerational cycles of abuse/neglect, but ultimately I dont think I have a right to control another person - a woman doesnt have a lesser right to bodily autonomy because shes poor/homeless/addicted etc. even if it results in better outcomes all round.

Decriminalisation of late term abortion is like the reverse argument though which is why I find it difficult to understand because it doesnt have the autonomy vs utilitarian dilemma above. On both autonomy and utilitarian arguments, it would actually be best to help her have a safe late term abortion.

Foetuses are lives that deserve to be saved and to kill them is (nigh on) murder...unless their father was a rapist, in which case they deserve to die for his crimes

I think it’s a good litmus test. There are many pro-lifers who don’t think rape is enough reason for abortion. These are the ‘real’ pro-lifers in my view.

Then we’ve got those who think it’s okay in the case of rape, which seems like a ‘you must suffer the consequences of your actions’ type of deal, where it’s more about female responsibility. I don’t think it’s a very defensible position, but it is reflected in red American state legislation a lot as a compromise position.

I don’t think we need to maintain an absolutist position on bodily autonomy, I think it’s enough to give the vast majority a chance to opt out of motherhood, helping the greatest number of women whilst preventing the most severe abuses (eg Carla Foster)

Sorry I should have said opposition to decriminalisation of late term abortion is difficult to understand in my previous post.

Can you enlighten me what would happen in a 'self abortion' - do you just take a magic pill and a full term pregnancy disappears.
Where are the safeguards against coerced abortions. I've known plenty that entail a kick in the stomach or a fall downstairs.

There have been cases in which women have taken abortion pills that have resulted in early labour when the foetus was non-viable without receiving immediate medical attention, or one in which a woman took rat poison in what may have been either a suicide or an abortion attempt and nearly died, resulting in the death of the foetus.

In these cases, I think it's hard to argue that the woman should have been forced to continue the pregnancy - to what end? Who would benefit? Although of course, it's inhumane for everyone involved that they felt they had to resort to such extreme measures.

Forcing a woman to have an abortion should always be a crime, whether early term or late. What are the safeguards against that now? I think they should be the same for early term versus late, and very rigorous. And bodily assault is always illegal, of course.

Bobblebottle said it well, regarding late term abortions that the mother wants: "On both autonomy and utilitarian arguments, it would actually be best to help her have a safe late term abortion."

You know plenty of women who have been kicked in the stomach or pushed down the stairs in an attempt to abort a pregnancy?

What is it you do not understand about a foetus or a near full term baby being a separate life? That it has depended on the mother to survive up until a certain point does not negate its 'otherness'.

The idea that having a degree of respect and maybe even awe for the miracle of pregnancy, new life and birth is not 'misogyny'. Some people use that term too readily, and it loses all its meaning. It seems to mean ( the way you are employing it) anything that impinges on what an individual woman wants to do.

Exactly. You've been clear that you mainly support abortion rights, pp is being unfair.