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/

Why? What about expecting all adults to have the same responsibilities to donate their bodies to preserve lives, is 'bonkers'? Blood and bone marrow transplants are minimally invasive compared to pregnancy, and save lives.

So, why is it bonkers?

(I think you'll find the answer is: misogyny)

I don't like to say this usually...But..

ARE you a man?

Thank you, that's very interesting. I do agree with a lot of FWR but I agree that taking things to a level where certain things are completely unquestionable isn't helpful- and yes, it is related to idpol.

I agree mainly with this bit late term abortion IS different in that if a woman aborts a late term baby, the baby will definitely die. Whereas if someone refuses to donate bone marrow, there might still be hope for someone else to donate it and save the person.

There are situations though where no donor can be found, and people die because of it. Even organ donation - donating a kidney or part of one's liver isn't really more invasive than pregnancy.

I do agree that inducing early labour is preferable to abortion, with the baby being adopted out with no option to contact the mother if she prefers, but again I find it hard to stomach a world in which only pregnant women and girls are placed under such restrictions, while people die of preventable causes and no one else is expected to compromise their bodily autonomy to save lives.

Even automatic organ donation upon death isn't expected, out of respect to the dead person. How is that justifiable, but women and girls are forced to give up their living bodies for an unwanted foetus?

No. Did you assumed this because I haven't used enough womany words? Or is it because I dismissed Otterly's bonker's argument using male coded language? Can you think of a better term to describe the argument that we should legislate for late term abortion because we can't make men be pregnant and that's...so not fair? Because when you strip away the bodily autonomy argument which is 'morally inconsistent' , and debunk the equally bonkers assertion that a late term foetus is 'unalive', this is what we are left with. Penis envy. (Oops! I said it again.🤭) Maybe that's an argument that sways you; but I think there are many women, like me, who remain unconvinced.

I don't agree with Otterly either on that subject. But I'm suspicious of anyone who uses 'penis envy' terminology. I realise you didn't use it in strictly Freudian way, though.

Yes, because wanting women to have equitable rights and restrictions is 'envy' of 'penises'. I think perhaps you might be suffering from a severe case of dick pandering.

As I said, if people in general are not otherwise forced to give up a degree of bodily autonomy in order to save lives, regarding blood and bone marrow donations, then it is misogynistic to demand that women and girls do so for unwanted foetuses.

I have to ask, why are people not being expected to donate blood and bone marrow (or even organs) to save lives then, if lives are so precious that we need to force women and girls to remain pregnant once the foetus is potentially viable (with massive amounts of medical intervention)?

It's a typical pro-life argument - a baby is so precious until it's born that a woman loses the rights over her body past a certain point...but then once it's born, no one cares if it needs a bone marrow donation to survive as a small child, and dies thanks to a lack of suitable donors coming forward.

Why? Because it's not actually about the baby. It's about controlling women.

Its active vs passive.
Active: Removing all the blood from a child.
Passive: not donating blood to child.
Active: setting fire to a house.
Passive: not running into a burning building
Active:pushing a child into a raging river
Passive: not jumping into the river to save a drowning child.

Late term abortions are an action. They are not Passive.

Passive would be noticing the feotus dying (not sure if this is possible) and doing nothing.

Late term abortions cannot be compared to refusing to donate blood or marrow to cure a condition.

We all die and from the dawn of time we have passively watched people die. Thats why its not a crime to do nothing. It is in my opinion morally suspect in some cases but watching someone die from a cause you did not commit is not the same as causing the death.

How am I? I've simply asked her to back up her point that women have a natural responsibility from a certain gestation of pregnancy and why. I didn't call her religious? Having terminations yourself doesn't give anyone the right to tell others when they aren't entitled to bodily autonomy anymore and if she thinks it does she could clarify why. Why is it harsh to ask someone to finish their thought?

So what is so harsh about asking her to explain the logic of her position exactly? I'd genuinely like to understand why she states that a restriction on women is natural and when exactly that trumps her bodily autonomy. I believe it was shortshrift that originally threw around the accusations that people were being inconsistent and had cognitive dissonance on the subject while her points are examples of both so it would be interesting as it's a discussion forum for her to actually explain that line of thinking so people can understand it.

What a load of waffle tbh someone asking you to explain your point is someone who wants to understand your view and perspective but you're not finishing your thoughts or answering anyone's questions just complaining that people don't want to hear them.despite posters repeatedly asking you to expand on your point.

I take a hard line where it is necessary.

People make up examples for arguments sake, but don’t want to explore real
cases that show that, no, it’s not just sympathetic stories of scared teens with abusive parents or older boyfriends. Sometimes it’s a woman who kills a baby at the late stage because it’s become inconvenient to her relationship, same reason why young children get abused and murdered by their own parents. Utter selfishness.

I mean, did you think she should never have been charged?

Another misogynist trope on a feminist forum, honestly how many men are on here exactly? 🙄

But this definition are you defining pregnancy and labour as passive?

I'm really not going to engage with Carla foster anymore with you until you properly engage with any of the other real life examples that have been shared with you that you've dismissed. I already said cases like hers are a complex case and not as simple as you keep repeating and that extrapolating from her rare case causes harm to the majority of women who have had a late miscarriage or stillbirth. I'll engage with you more on her when you actually answer where the benefit of her prosecution was and where the benefit of prosecution was in my friends case? Why did she deserve a longer sentence than many men who commit a violent crime?

yes, in the sense it just ‘happens’ whereas you must actively seek an abortion.

This distinction matters whether you respect it or not.

I don’t recall you mentioning your friend had faced prosecution? I only recall you mentioning another friend who had to push back her surgery because she was unexpectedly pregnant?

Ok at least you're finally honest that you don't see pregnancy and labour as something women actively go through and therefore should require their consent especially considering it's side effects and complications, but I am aware many think of women as passive incubators. Thanks for clarifying your position but as you claim blood donation as PPs example is too "active" to be morally required to save a life but you think going through pregnancy and birth isn't...well no I don't respect that, it's a gross misunderstanding of the toll on a woman's body.

ETA and risk to life! Pregnancy and labour cannot be passive when women can die from complications

Active versus passive is a coward's argument.

To borrow from the trolley problem, if I know that I can pull a lever at a control panel beside me and divert a trolley from running over and killing three people, and I stand by and do nothing, am I really any less culpable for their deaths because it was 'passive'?

If I see a child about to toddle off the edge of a cliff, and stand by and watch them and say nothing and do nothing to prevent it, am I really less culpable for their death because it was passive?

Can I stand there, and say, "well, I didn't do anything, why are you all so mad at me?" when the very issue is that I didn't do anything, while knowing what the outcome would be, and being capable of stopping it without serious risk to myself?

Yes and why did she? Because without the necessary paperwork there would be a risk of prosecution. This is the third or fourth time in asking you to justify the benefit of that?

Apparently PP is capable of calling people transphobes and envious of men, but not capable of engaging with cogent counter arguments. I'm not sure the claims of academic degrees hold much water. Or if they do, perhaps PP should get a refund.

So she didn’t face prosecution. Ok.

Agreed, it's illogical to start an argument based on moral responsibility to save lives but then say there's nothing morally wrong or inconsistent with inaction.