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/

Well that's a surprise! Most of that is a feminism I can get on board with. But as you say yourself, your adherence to the principle of bodily autonomy is not "entirely" absolute. You've just chosen to apply it absolutely to pregnancy and use it as a stick against other women to advocate your position. Expect the same pushback and accusations of moral inconsistency and/or misogyny from others who choose to apply the principle of 'absolute' bodily autonomy to the fertility trade.

Women who are in mental distress so severe as to think that a self-induced late-term abortion is a good idea are not criminalised, just as we don't criminalise suicidal people

No, she murdered her child at 32 weeks, to get back with her partner. This was not a teen in distress, it was a 40+ year old woman who was willing to murder her daughter for an ex.

We criminalize murderers, even in ‘distress’. Your distress at being cheated on doesn’t mean you get to murder your partner, for example.

Well that's a surprise! Most of that is a feminism I can get on board with. But as you say yourself, your adherence to the principle of bodily autonomy is not "entirely" absolute. You've just chosen to apply it absolutely to pregnancy and use it as a stick against other women to advocate your position. Expect the same pushback and accusations of moral inconsistency and/or misogyny from others who choose to apply the principle of 'absolute' bodily autonomy to the fertility trade.

Edit; Re post to include Quote

Nope again it's not because you disagree, it's to do with the complete lack of empathy you have for women and the way in which you talk about this topic as though it doesn't impact you.

You have no consistent point to make so I assume you are just here to agitate against a decision that is pro-women, you've gone from equating this decision with infanticide, spreading complete misinformation on UK abortion law to advocating for eugenics all so you can avoid answering a couple of very clear basic questions on your position. You want to keep banging on about Carla foster without answering in who's benefit prosecuting women like her is in? Where is the benefit of imprisoning women away from their children for longer than a man who commits a violent crime would be? You also refused to answer where the benefit in a risk of prosecution to my friend or her HCP was? All while being pretty grossly dismissive of the actual impact of these laws on real women's lives like hers and the unnecessary distress. If you believe this distress is worthwhile and not enough reason to change legislation then state why.

You're trying to pretend you don't hold a hard line on this issue but it's more transparent than you think that you don't support access to abortion or bodily autonomy in principal. You don't want to come out and actually state your position but it's obvious when you parrott the usual anti choice lines or scaremongering and misinformation and appeals to emotion and absolute refusal to recognise the lived experience of the majority of women affected by these laws.

ETA this is you again refusing to answer a simple question about the misinformation you post. Are you saying that two doctors won't give permission when the mothers life is at risk?

You sound ridiculous to keep repeating it this way. Of course it was absolutely that simple and every legal and medical expert that disagreed with you is just too dumb to understand how absolutely simple you find it! Again you showing you have a real disdain for women and absolutely no empathy for a mother being in distress even if you find it unthinkable because you're unable to extrapolate about how your very hard line position on this one particular case would have an impact of many other women who aren't as simply evil as you've decided Carla Foster is and in many evidenced cases were women experience heartbreaking babyloss. You claim to understand the risks of a hard line position yet are incapable of understanding you're doing this.

"Women and no-one else".

Who else is there.....do you mean men?

Men don't become pregnant or carry human life, nor give birth to it, do they? They don't share in the experience, nor the consequences or implications of pregnancy in such an intimate and connected way, do they? This doesn't mean that women should jettison all ethical considerations in the belief that just because it is their body that is involved they have a right to do anything they please - even in a difficult personal situation.

Women's 'rights' and individual autonomy are respected up to a point in permitting legal abortion - but most people believe that there should be limits - because there are other ethical considerations - that at some point become more important than individual autonomy.

I keep repeating the same things, because that is I how I perceive the matter - no matter how difficult you might find that.

Our body is not a social construct. It is a flesh and blood reality. Women have wombs, the evolutionary function of which is to carry offspring.

You seem more concerned with hating and resenting men, rather than in respecting women and the uniquenes of the female experience. You seem to resent that certain aspects of what makes us female also restrict our personal autonomy in certain ways.

Yours seems to be is the sort of intersectionalist/'equality' feminism which seeks to deny any differences between men and women - and resents that women have female bodies and the responsibilities and experiences that stem from that.

But we know now they cause a large part of pregnancy and foetus complications , just because they don't carry the pregnancy doesn't make men completely seperate from this responsibility you place on reproduction so should we be allowed to place restrictions on men or not?

What I resent is your wish to apply your person view that women have a responsibility to you and your opinions when it comes their bodies and healthcare.

Great quote from Kathleen Stock there.

I do agree that this 'bodily autonomy' perspective is like an inflexible, rigid and cultish mantra..In the same manner of TWAW. It is a form of ideologcal extremism in my view of - the sort that pushes every maxim to its ultimate end point.

Nature itself doesn't place the same type of 'restrictions' on the male......even if a society considers it best ( and ethical) if the male sticks around and is supportive of the family unit. The basic family unit is the mother and the child.

If you think it's too rigid it's because you can't articulate a logical argument of why the other ethics you feel so strongly for matter more than the ethic of bodily autonomy. Just as KS does in that quote, where she attacks the importance of bodily autonomy but doesn't actually expand on what she thinks should trump it and why.

“You seem to resent that certain aspects of what makes us female also restrict our personal autonomy in certain ways”

This statement is backwards. It tries to dress up a political restriction as some kind of natural truth about being female, when it’s nothing of the sort. You keep repeating it as if it is a fact. When it is merely your opinion. Women aren’t born with less autonomy because we are female, it is taken from us.

Framing this as an inherent feature of being female is especially dishonest because it shifts the blame away from the people making the rules. It’s not biology restricting women here. It’s other people deciding they should be restricted.

It’s an attempt to normalise control. Instead of admitting “we think women shouldn’t be allowed to choose after X point,” it hides behind vague language about autonomy already being limited, it’s a convenient way of justifying taking rights away while pretending it’s inevitable.

How does nature place that restriction on women though? Nature isn't stopping women from being able to access abortion, that's a restriction placed through law. Nature doesn't force a woman to take any of the responsibilities you're advocating for. You're advocating on restrictions on women in the name of responsibility to be enforced through law, so why not explain why the law shouldn't impose restrictions on men in the name of responsibility?

I've articulated my position thoroughly, and logically, on many occasions....even if you didn't read or agree with it. You seem to expect people to use your particular frames of reference to explain their own point of view.

Brilliantly articulated 👏

No you haven't. You've stated many times obviously that you think the life of the foetus trumps woman's bodily autonomy but haven't given a coherent logical reason why.

This is supposed to be a discussion, a lively exchange of ethical and philosophical/viewpoints. It is not meant to be personal slanging match.. Do you not understand the difference?

Why, because she is in agreement with you?

If you cannot be bother to read my posts, I can't be bothered to engage with you any more. I've said numerous times i support the women's right tothe termination of her pregnancy - up until a point, when other ethical considerations start to take precedent.

I hardly think saying I resent you imposing misogynistic standards on women's life is a personal attack, that's more like you telling people who disagree with you that they must support PBs or are non-binary. I only corrected you on what I feel resentful about because you insist on telling me and other posters what we resent including saying we resent being female.

No because she accurately described the harm caused by you stating women's oppression is natural.

Other ethical considerations start to take precedent.
No you just keep repeating this without saying which and why.

I have.

It is you who is framing everything through the lens of 'oppression'.