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/

She would have though as would her HCP, why?

Quite, I was wondering when she mentioned her studies if her dissertation was just a nebulous claim with no evidence or references and dismissing tentative theories with insults about the authors! I don't think that would have been received very well.

It's clutching at straws, and really makes it clear what people's true motivations and feelings are, even if they don't realise it themselves, they're so saturated in patriarchal viewpoints.

They're fighting tooth and nail to insist that "no, people shouldn't have to give bone marrow, even if it would save a child's life - people shouldn't even have to give blood. It's better that a child should die, than that someone be forced to donate blood or marrow to save their life, and it's ridiculous to argue that anyone should be expected to do it."

But then they try to argue that women and girls - no matter their circumstances - shouldn't be allowed to abort a foetus that would be viable with intensive medical intervention, because life is so precious, and to abort would result in a baby's death, and that has to be prevented at all costs.

No. I'm not buying that argument. It's patently false. It's about controlling and punishing women. It's always about controlling and punishing women.

"Active versus passive is a coward's argument."

At least its an argument.
Unlike name calling and questioning the education of other posters.

I was not passing moral judgement. I was merely pointing out that you are comparing two completely different things.

Abortion aside, do you think you should be forced to donate blood..etc. should be forced into burning buildings or are you a coward like the rest of us?

Agreed, I think that's why PP are complaining of being dismissed when actually they just don't want to finish their point because they hit a wall where the only thing left to explain the contradiction is that it makes them uncomfortable without exploring why, why they view restricting or placing demands on women differently, and why they feel women shouldn't be allowed to do something that makes them personally uncomfortable. That's why it's suddenly well yes women are controlled but not by society, it's by nature or framing pregnancy as a passive thing that "just happens" to women because of cognitive dissonance between the part of them that thinks they don't want to control women and the internalised misogyny they've accepted as fitting with their own moral ethics. Personally I find it offensive that if people are going to argue that women are so naturally inclined to be nurturing, caring and responsible but none of that comes with a natural wisdom to know what is best for them and their families and the children they already have because the antichoice side likes to conveniently forget that many women who have abortions are already mothers acting on what they believe is best for the family they're already responsible for. But that's inconvenient, easier to claim abortion is a situation of women being selfish and irresponsible because again it's then easier to attack.

You haven't answered if you think pregnancy is active or passive. I didn't read PPs post as comparing late term abortion to donating blood or bone marrow, she was comparing pregnancy to it given during pregnancy a woman's body is sustaining the pregnancy. So is pregnancy and labour active or passive by your definition?

I've addressed many arguments on this thread, and put forth many. It took pages and pages for people to even acknowledge the blood donation argument.

And I'm merely pointing out that I think the 'active vs passive' distinction is a cowardly dodge. What's the issue?

Well, I think that women shouldn't be forced to remain pregnant if they don't want to be. So no, I also don't think that people should be forced to donate blood or bone marrow. That would be morally inconsistent. Although I do believe that late term abortions should be discouraged where possible, and blood and bone marrow donations encouraged and made easier to do.

What about you?

I also think that someone who does not prevent a child from falling off a cliff and dying when they could easily do so, is morally culpable for their death despite not doing anything. Do you?

(I'm not sure what that has to do with burning buildings? I was very clear about 'without serious risk' being a factor and even gave two examples, but you'd apparently rather jump to the totally irrelevant hyperbole of 'burning buildings'.)

Pregnancy is passive.

Labour feels active but will happen without our intervention. So passive to begin and active when pushing.

Yes! All of this is so well said. The avoidance of facing up to uncomfortable cognitive dissonance is an interesting thing to see, personally.

I would've thought that people would agree that blood and bone marrow donation should be mandatory, in order to make their arguments regarding abortion seem less obviously misogynistic - after all, what do they have to lose by doing that? It's not like their agreement will make it happen, and it would benefit their argument.

But instead it seems that they feel so strongly and viscerally that people at large should have bodily autonomy but women and girls shouldn't that they can't help but to argue a morally contradictory, blatantly misogynistic position. They give themselves away entirely unnecessarily.

It's a little bizarre.

I disagree, but would like to hear further why you'd define it as passive? Do you mean only that the woman doesn't have to consciously keep the pregnancy going despite the constant metabolic effort of her body to maintain it where as someone has to consciously choose to give blood? I wonder if you're combining the involuntary nature of pregnancy with it being passive perhaps as I'm not sure how to square the use of a woman's organs as a passive act unless you consider the woman going through pregnancy a bystander rather than an active participant. I also wonder with you describing labour as still inherently passive, what does that mean for women's consent? And why is the pushing part active suddenly when it's an involuntary process as you describe it?

I'm not sure of your point with all this active versus passive? Even putting aside any disagreement over pregnancy being passive, leaving a newborn to die of exposure wherever you gave birth to it (say, on a hillside in the woods), is passive.

Does that therefore mean it's not a crime? As in your view, "its not a crime to do nothing."

If you're arguing that passive is less bad than active (which you seem to be?) then by your own argument, having an abortion is 'worse' than giving birth and then simply doing nothing to save the baby from its natural death by exposure or dehydration.

Personally I disagree extremely strongly with that, and I think it exposes a pretty major flaw in the whole 'passive vs active' argument.

Exactly, although I'd still disagree I could at least appreciate some consistency that valued life and people's responsibility to maintain it as equal. Now of course they aren't actively restricting or controlling women at all, pregnancy is a completely passive process where our blood and organs are being used and basically saying we don't need consent for usage of women's bodie which can actually be life threatening but we can't demand a simple blood donation from someone. This idea of women as passive incubators that owe their bodies to society being trotter out like a normal thing to say is quite chilling.

I don't feel strongly about any of this.
I merely think your arguments are weak.

If bodily autonomy is the key argument, an incestuously raped 14 yo is irrelevant and only there to invoke pity.

And compelled blood donation is a poor comparitor to not ending a pregnancy.

I wonder if with their logic is a woman could simply control her metabolic state and choose to stop pumping 50% more blood and other biological process to sustain the pregnancy which result in a miscarriage that would be fine? They could just passively stop supporting the pregnancy like watching a child drown?

I have stated i think pregnancy is passive, therefore logically i dont think women can control their blood supply.

This is getting weird now.

So you're calling my arguments weak, while simultaneously frantically avoiding addressing any of them in any genuine, good faith way?

If my arguments are so dreadfully weak, then why haven't you addressed them head on and dismantled them with great ease, instead of making barely relevant statements of opinion?

Oh dear. Never mind. You tried, I suppose. Sort of.

So you don't think pregnancy involves the active support and use for a woman's body? Her body doesn't have to do anything to support the pregnancy and there are no changes within her body to support a pregnancy and no after effects? I'm curious if you've ever been pregnant or through childbirth if you can define it so simply as passive?

I thought I had argued that actively ending a pregnancy was different to passively not donating blood.
Which part of the above needs clarifying?

Ah, yes - I feel as though if pregnancy was something a woman had to consciously sustain, and passively decided not to continue sustaining it at 26 weeks gestation, then PPs wouldn't be any happier about her decision to be passive.

Meh another one claiming the argument for bodily autonomy is weak while refusing to engage in any critical thinking about their position. If it's so weak you can easily challenge it?

No. You didn't argue that. You said it. There's a difference.

I repeat, just in case you want to actually try to engage:

I'm not sure of your point with all this active versus passive? Even putting aside any disagreement over pregnancy being passive, leaving a newborn to die of exposure wherever you gave birth to it (say, on a hillside in the woods), is passive.

Does that therefore mean it's not a crime? As in your view, "its not a crime to do nothing."

If you're arguing that passive is less bad than active (which you seem to be?) then by your own argument, having an abortion is 'worse' than giving birth and then simply doing nothing to save the baby from its natural death by exposure or dehydration.

Personally I disagree extremely strongly with that, and I think it exposes a pretty major (fatal) flaw in the whole 'passive vs active' argument.

Because you're not equating the same scenario, somehow by your logic not donating blood is passive and donating blood is active..well women "donate" their body to sustain a pregnancy everyday yet you describe that as passive and no longer donating as active. It's confusing.

I wonder what PP would think of the old violinist argument; as in, if (s)he went to sleep one night, and then woke up strapped to a bed with her organs being used to sustain another human for nine months, who will die without her.

I somehow don't think the argument that she's 'passive' in the situation, and that to 'actively' remove herself would be murder, would convince her to remain 'passively' attached.

(But yes, you're right - women are donating the use of their blood, organs, and nourishment to the foetus every second that they're pregnant. By the PP's own argument, donating blood etc is active.)

The woman doesn't need to donate anything in the last few weeks.

Many children are born early.
A live birth can be induced.

Your option will still need induction and birth (before you call me a forced birther)

The woman will be giving birth at this stage anyway.

Another poor analagy as I would remove myself as a life support well before the nine months stage.