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/

Men and women being different doesn't mean women should be forced to have less bodily autonomy, though. That's a moral stance you've chosen.

You have literally said those things.

And you've still not addressed my points about parental organ or marrow donation. You've made assumptions, gone on the attack, dodged like mad, and not once answered that.

A woman's body is predicated on not having the sort of 'bodily autonomy' you seem so keen on. That is one of the obvious differences between male and female. A female body is not a male body. It is not lesser; it is different and with different implications.

https://www.thetimes.com/article/33f673e3-08f8-433e-8e22-5fa34d0d7f82?shareToken=3878460a0e2fe730a2aca702067a723f

Still not addressing my arguments, I see. And still just pushing the notion that women should have fewer bodily rights.

And this from Janice Turner yesterday:

"I don’t subscribe to the fashionable view of abortion as “just healthcare”, except in the rare cases it truly saves a mother’s life. Abortion is always an ethical choice: a balance between a woman’s right to reproductive autonomy and that of the life growing within her. Our laws regard a foetus up to 24 weeks as acceptable collateral for women’s freedom. (For most EU countries it is around 12 weeks."

https://www.thetimes.com/comment/columnists/article/left-has-a-moral-blindspot-on-human-life-ts5fpswh0

You know what's not a happy ending? Criminalising a girl who self aborted or killed a late term foetus because she was scared, and unable to access help.
You know that is not what is being suggested, and is not the current situation. Girls are not being imprisoned. I think only one woman has been and several men.
You seem to be enraged by biology, we're a sexually dimorphic vivaporous species just like many others. In this case men are not to blame.
Have you read 'Brave New World' I think you'd fit right in.

I'm angered by the deliberate and unnecessary misogyny of a world that has rules for me and not for thee.

Should a parent be forced to donate blood, bone marrow, or organs to save their child's life?

oh that poor, scared 44-year-old woman who induced a miscarriage at 32 weeks because her daughter suddenly become inconvenient to getting back with her ex. She killed her daughter for a MAN which is a fucking disgrace.

This is who PP is defending

I already have thank you and the consultant very clearly stated they could not act as the foetus has a heartbeat. You can continue spreading misinformation if you want but I'll keep correcting it. Feel free as I said to challenge anything I pasted exactly from the enquiry that you feel is wrong.

Haven't finished the full thread but I've asked you and @OtterlyAstounding has also asked you to who benefits from your stance that someone can't access an abortion if they find out at a certain point in pregnancy. I doubt you'll answer but you exactly do want women to be responsible to exactly? Because you posts are all repeating the same insulation that women owe the world something that no one else does.

You seem very stuck on this point, and if you apply the right to bodily autonomy equitably, then of course you are right, and there is an inconsistency. I wonder actually if the philosophical belief of bodily autonomy in relation to parental tissue donation should be revisited? Most parents are more then happy to donate life saving tissue to their children, so it could be argued that those that don't are negligent. I imagine a lot of people might be persuaded that compulsion of parental organ donation would be a fair trade if the argument is an all or nothing scenario. Conversely, if revisting the issue determined that bodily autonomy is in fact absolute, then applying the principle equitably would require revising current practises in many areas e.g. incarnation, when someone if standing on top of a bridge about to jump etc.

Oh so now when you wanna argue against bodily autonomy and a principal you can state that no doctors gonna abort a healthy child but earlier in the thread this law change was going to lead women to start murdering their toddlers and there would be Carla fosters everywhere going unpunished. Another great example that the cognitive dissonance and contradiction.

Name one of other law that restricts everyone is lees bodily autonomy for the greater good then. By your logical, morally, none of us should be able to opt out of organ or blood donation, yet this argument of a limit to bodily autonomy only gets trotted out when it's the bodies of women and girls.

Yes, I do think that applying autonomy equitably is important.

Personally, I would still argue that autonomy over one's own body should be sacrosanct, but I would respect an argument that said abortion past viability should be illegal, and that every adult should be expected to donate blood and bone marrow as part of a nationwide register, in order to save lives while inflicting minimal impact on individuals.

I'd disagree with that position, but I'd respect it, because it's morally consistent and not misogynistic.

Absolutely this. But of course they have to malign the definition of bodily autonomy into infanticide to again make it easier to attack because they don't have a reasonable defense to why they want to restrict a woman's bodily autonomy. It's the same on every thread about this topic and straight out of the antic-choice playbook.

Should a parent be forced to donate blood, bone marrow, or organs to save their child's life?
What kind of parent would need to be forced?

Feel free to actually articulate an argument of why you disagree with the concept of women and girls have equal bodily autonomy rights as men, or can you not?

Can you not understand bodily autonomy and autonomy aren't the exact same concept? Or are you just another unable to articulate why you want to deny women's bodily autonomy so you'll pretend to misunderstand what PP means

It's quite tiresome how quickly you in particular instantly leap to someone being in disagreement with you on an actual feminist issue to them being a TRA or non binary or whatever else. I'm pretty sure you're the poster who tried to imply I must agree with puberty blockers because I stated abortion would have saved Savitas life. It's really low.

The rest of your post is really unimaginative and just repeating the same old sexist tropes thrown at women throughout history. We actually know much more now on how the health of the fathers body impacts the foetus and it's development - should we start restricting their bodily autonomy for the benefit of their potential future babies? It's only fair if we know that if they drink or smoke it can affect the baby so don't they also owe the world? Why aren't their bodies also not entirely their own? I'm deeply disturbed to see someone on the feminist forum state that women and girls don't entirely own their own bodies 🤢

Are you pretending that absent, neglectful, or abusive parents don't exist?

Except you are literally spouting views that are discriminatory against women and.commonly.held by misogynistic men although it's not uncommon for women to internalise misogyny as you have. So her descriptor of you was pretty accurate and yours are made up personal attacks. I see by now you've already accused her of believing TWAW, calling you a trans phone and accused her of being non-binary / not wanting to be female. Basically her logic is triggering your cognitive dissonance so how do you categorise her as an enemy?

Every accusations is an admission with you. I really don't know how you type this out without realising you're describing your behaviour the entire thread.

Is this you backing out a second time now? 😂 You already did that before when you didn't want to argue who your desired restrictions of women's bodily autonomy benefited? Also when you were asked in my friends scenario who the risk of prosecution of her or her HCP benefited?

You've been making personal comments and accusations throughout to a number of people, resorting to name calling.
You literally just accused PP of being non binary and not wanting to be female perhaps even wanting to be a man. From nowhere! Absolute madness that you're so averse to seeing any contradiction in your logic and perhaps changing your mind even slightly or even just recognising a different POV for what it is that you resort to these absurd attacks.

Well if there's no bodily autonomy they won't even need to be asked will they? Where does it stop - should a parent automatically be assumed willing to donate their heart to the child? Cos no parent would need to be forced ofc and bodily autonomy is no biggie apparently.

Why every adult and not just the parents of the child? Are you opposed to interventions when someone is stood on a bridge about to jump?