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/

Foetus/baby as a separate life form to the mother........

Biological Perspective

• Unique DNA: From the moment of fertilization, the zygote (and later the fetus) possesses a unique set of DNA that is 50% from the mother and 50% from the father. This genotype is distinct from the mother’s, making it biologically a separate organism/organism of the species Homo sapiens.
• Different Biological Systems: A developing fetus generally has its own blood type, circulatory system, and developing organ systems.
• Dependence: While genetically separate, the fetus is completely dependent on the woman's body for oxygen, nutrients, and waste removal via the placenta until viability.

Anatomical Perspective

• Placental Function: While the placenta interfaces with the mother, it is often argued that the fetus is not merely an organ of the mother, but a separate organism residing within her.
• Fetal Cells in Maternal Body: It is well established that fetal cells cross the placenta and enter the mother's blood and organs, a phenomenon called fetal microchimerism, where the fetus's cells can persist in the mother for decades.

Legal and Philosophical Perspectives

• Personhood: Biologically speaking, the fetus is a human life, but whether it is a "person" with legal rights is a philosophical and legal debate, not a biological one.
• Legal Standing: In many jurisdictions, a fetus does not have legal rights until it is born alive. For example, in Canadian law, a child becomes a human being "within the meaning of this Act when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother".
• Bodily Autonomy: A major argument in this debate is that even if a fetus is considered a separate life, it is not entitled to use the body of another person (the mother) without her consent.

'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 think that's a bit unfair. I'm pro choice but I don't think we should criticise rape exemptions as hypocritical or inconsistent or 'not real pro lifers' It's coherent morally to argue the trauma of a rape victim giving birth may outweigh the wrong of abortion. I've spoken to pro lifers who stress the value choice and a rape victim has no choice. This also fits the traditional Jewish ethic where life should be preserved but the mother's mental and physical health also weigh in the balance

Why do you think this : ' most likely won't give it up for adoption'? I agree it's horribly hard and I take your point about difficulty paying in US

To my mind the ''Bodily Autonomy' arguments only get you so far, before they conflict with ethical concerns. We all have autonomy up to a point, but ultimately none of us is separate from the society or culture within which we live, and most people operate with an understanding that individuals also have duties and obligations towards the greater good. This forms the basis of morality.

This

'Why is it obviously wrong that a child going into care from birth would be better off aborted'

• because you're coming close to saying, then, that the lives of abandoned children or children in care aren't worth living.

No. Because I do not believe bodily autonomy as a philosophical belief is absolute and/or applicable equally in all scenarios. Current legislation agrees, which is why we allow late term abortions when the the mother's life is in danger.

Yes, I think Otterly is also overlooking that this is partly why some will allow late term abortion in the case of rape : that is a case if it being inflicted on a woman an could potentially cause severe emotional distress.

People who need blood donation have various options for survival. A foetus has only one, the mother.

'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.'

Because at late term the baby can survive outside the mother's womb, and imo and others is worthy of consideration as a being in its own right in a way , say , a 3 week old foetus would not be

'unless their father was a rapist, in which case they deserve to die for his crimes.'

• it's not about that. One, some pro lifers, or people who are pro life at late term would argue that it's a different kind of situation because the mother's choice was taken away. And moreover, it could fit under the category of causing dangerous stress to mental health of the mother.

Pro life feminists are quite wide, not just 'rabid' Catholics. I'm not pro life, but I don't think we should totally write off Fannie Lou Hamer, Wangari Maathai, and a heavy amount of the suffragettes and suffragists just because they were.

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 could say the same thing about people exposing newborns on the hillside. It’s the exact same argument. And in many cultures it was completely acceptable until the 20th century, you can understand why, when those cultures were living at the margins in extreme scarcity

It’s true I’m overstating it somewhat and apologize if it comes across as offensive.

I admit I don’t always have a great deal of tolerance for the pro-life movement, but the women who lead it do seem to have a logical and consistent worldview, however much I advocate against it, so I have a grudging respect for them.

And I understand many suffragettes were pro-life, though subsequent waves of feminism developed along different lines. A big ‘what if’ moment if the first wave had passed on this reverence for motherhood and family to the second wave rather than the extreme focus on individualism and personal autonomy

Exactly. There's no excuse, you can sympathise hugely with a horrible situation but that's not the same as condoning killing like that.

This is probably one of the most upsetting books I've read,,but it's worth a read for the information it gives on the history of infanticide for the reasons you said
.
https://www.amazon.com/Hardness-Heart-Life-Stain-Infanticide/dp/1575027682

What does infanticide have to do with abortion?

I understand that about second waves arguably overvaluing individualism (though autonomy is important) but it's important to remember feminism gas always had competing strands even if some are more prominent in media.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_feminism

This strand was large also during the second wave. Overlapped a bit with hippie culture sometimes and could be a bit woo woo, and could arguably be too essentialist, but it was a different perspective.

Second wavers like Gloria Steinem and Carol Gilligan (esp in her book In A Different Voice) were not part of this but did emphasise interdependence and valuing traditionally female stuff. Steinem has historically been criticised a lot for not having kids, but she's actually often been a lot more positive about motherhood than , say , Betty Friedan, who actually was one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_feminism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maternal_feminism

What do you think a very late-term abortion has in common with infanticide?

An abortion is not the same as infanticide. There is no bodily autonomy argument for infanticide.

Have a think about it and see what you come up with.

You could certainly argue that there is an autonomy argument for infanticide...because a child after birth is still heavily/totally dependent on the mother for nurturing, care-taking and survival. What if that dependency and parasitism conflicts with the woman's right to do as she pleases with her life?

I disagree. Birth is a very hard line in human development terms, a much harder line than 'viability' through medical assistance with variable health outcomes depending on level of prematurity. Foetal development in utero is gradual, day by day, making a cutoff for viability somewhat artificial in a way that birth is not. It's true an infant is highly dependent on its mother, but in the case of death of the mother, the infant will survive as long as it is fed and cared for by another, and this used to happen in the past when lots of women died in childbirth. An infant has no parasitical-type relationship with its mother, unlike a foetus which affects its mother's immune system to prevent her from rejecting the foreign DNA, and which is dependent on getting nutrients from her blood via the placenta, which was also made by her body from the food she ate. As I said, if a pregnant woman dies, her foetus will within minutes start to suffer from a lack of oxygenated blood which will result in its imminent death too. That's why a baby's first cry as soon as it's born is so signifcant - it signifies being able to breathe and take in oxygen from the atmosphere which is essential for life. A foetus' status of dependency and relationship with its mother's body are completely different to that of a newborn child.

I don't think the ability to breath independently is a very good arbtrator of life and has all kinds of obvious implications. Also, recent studies that show changes in women's brains after birth suggest that a parasitic relationship continues post partum. This has considerable implications for a woman's bodily autonomy and would certainly support the case for infanticide.

Being able to breathe is necessary for life but not sufficient. A baby is dependent for a considerable time after birth.
In what sense does anyone have an obligation to this developing human if the mother just walks away. She is the one with a genetic connection.
If you take bodily autonomy as an absolute, taking responsibility for a child is merely a matter of choice.

We don't allow people to kill babies because they're emotionally distressed, though.

That doesn't make sense.