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/

Yeah exactly, I also wonder on how many scenarios passiveness is acceptable to them when it involves a foetus. A doctor not performing an intervention on a baby stuck in the canal is totally passive and okay surely? The morality is all over the place and inconsistent because underneath they're still making the same argument as PP that pregnancy is a natural state imposed on women that women are responsible to continue with whether that imposes unique restrictions on women or not.

But you'd be making an active choice to end a life which is immoral no?

Still not answering my point about passively abandoning a newborn to die, then?

And assuming you're responding to me, how is it better if you kill the adult human you're hooked up to earlier? That'd just be worse. Not to mention, you'd be taking an active action; apparently that's bad?

I mean, we're at the point where they're trying to pretend that being forced to donate blood to save a life is unreasonable and too much to expect, but being forced to continue the massively invasive and dangerous process of pregnancy is no big deal.

I think rationality has left the building.

The second scenario is the relevant one. The real crux of the
abortion issue is when does life begin, to which there are varying
views. The current limits are set by what we know about premature babies.
Most people shrink from pushing the fat man, most people shrink
from killing a full term baby for any less reason than saving the mother's life etc
That is not a misogynist position neither is it illogical it's the process of making legal and social boundaries.

The trolley dilemma: would you kill one person to save five? share.google/fbIHSpJVj7uWFfpix
Now consider now the second variation of this dilemma.
Imagine you are standing on a footbridge above the tram tracks. You can see the runaway trolley hurtling towards the five unsuspecting workers, but there’s no lever to divert it.
However, there is large man standing next to you on the footbridge. You’re confident that his bulk would stop the tram in its tracks.
So, would you push the man on to the tracks, sacrificing him in order to stop the tram and thereby saving five others?

I'd add in the case of late term abortions it is 1:1. If the mother's life is at risk she takes precedence.

Interestingly, the Trolley Problem was invented in its modern form to deal with the issue of abortion, so that's very pertinent.

"Philippa Foot developed the trolley problem in her 1967 paper "The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect," in which she explored Catholic opposition to abortion. She cited examples in which a pregnant woman's life is uncertain; actions that indirectly kill the fetus are permitted, while those that explicitly kill it are not. For example, a hysterectomy performed to save the woman kills a fetus, but the fetal death is not the intended result, so it is permitted. However, crushing the skull of a fetus to remove it to save the endangered woman intentionally kills the fetus, and therefore is not acceptable, even though the woman will die."

Although these days, the Trolley Problem is generally used to explore whether one believes in Utilitarianism or Deontology.

Personally, I lean towards utilitarianism, and so would advocate that killing one person to save five is the more 'correct' action, although obviously still horrific. It is the least bad option, if one cannot avoid the situation altogether.
Utilitarianism is, I think, the more appropriate position in this kind of situation, as if you inflate the numbers - would you kill one person to save a million - then it becomes very easy to see what action is the most morally beneficial.

Tangentially, the Trolley Problem is also sometimes used to examine whether distancing themselves from an act makes people more amenable to being active vs passive (eg. push vs switch, vs nothing at all), and also what or who people prioritise.
In this case, it seems as though if five women were on the tracks, then many of the people on this thread wouldn't push the fat man, but if the fat man were on the tracks, the same people might just push the five women.

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

What a strange little strawman you’ve constructed here. It’s not about that at all.

But when you’ve only got a hammer, everything starts to look like nails

Oh, I know you don't think it's about that. Of course not.

Perhaps I wouldn't have to use a hammer to try to hammer my point through, if people didn't consistently refuse to engage with any of the questions or points I've put forward, despite the fact that I've addressed theirs.

Oh well. I know why, it's just disappointing.

Of course Id kill the randomer who attached themselves to me.

I never at any point said i was against abortion. I would abort a child if i got pregnant today. I wouldn't wait for 39 weeks to do it.

I think most people arguing against very late term abortions are not against all abortions.

Their cut off point will vary usually depending on viability of foetus and health of the mother.

It is not misogynistic to give greater value to a pregnancy when its further along. We all do it. All things being equal a loss of pregnancy in the first 4 weeks is nothing like as traumatic as a still birth in the last 4 weeks.

I wouldnt push 5 women onto the tracks to save 1 man, that is an unfounded accusation.

That was already the case in the U.K. wasn’t it?

Yes it was. I'm just trying to be clear for the hard of understanding what the law says.

Thank you.

And what if the person was attached without knowing, and so is innocent in the situation? They're also a full grown person - if you think it's wrong to kill a late term foetus, then it's definitely wrong to kill an existing human. How could you argue that killing them is okay, and killing a foetus isn't?

Yes, a woman who has a wanted pregnancy will be more upset, because time, effort, and emotional attachment have occurred - it was very close to being born, and now it's dead but still has to be birthed. That's upsetting, if it's wanted.

It is misogynistic to insist that forced blood and bone marrow donation is somehow too invasive to suggest, in order to save people's lives, but that forced pregnancy past a certain point somehow isn't.

And I didn't say you would. I said some people might.

And I'm still waiting to know if abandoning a newborn to die is more acceptable than actively aborting a 26 week gestated foetus, because it's just passively letting nature take its course.

And whether, if pregnancy had to be actively sustained by a woman by her own conscious choice, it would be considered morally wrong for her to simply stop doing so at 26 weeks, for a reason she thinks is valid.

And whether others who didn't answer the question yet, would be in favour of enforced blood and bone marrow donation.

In this case, it seems as though if five women were on the tracks, then many of the people on this thread wouldn't push the fat man, but if the fat man were on the tracks, the same people might just push the five women.
Why on earth do you feel the need to sneer at other people .
Or are you aiming that at me.
I'm not a Utiltarian, I'm actually eclectic, no one philosophy has the answer, the tunnel vision is far too limiting for me. Keep an open mind.

If the motivation was to control women wouldn't posters be seizing on your examples and saying, yes, women should be obliged to donate kidneys, bone marrow, blood, anything else their progeny may need to thrive up until the age of majority. Or even beyond. That would maximise control of women's bodies, if that truly is the deeper motivation here.
The argument is that society should not decriminalise women fatally harming their foetus once their pregnancy has reached the point of viability for reasons that are similar, but not identical to, sanctions for neglecting or harming a baby, once born. Male and female parents / caregivers are held criminally responsibly for harm after birth. Before birth, male and female people (who are not the pregnant woman herself) can be charged with assault to procure miscarriage / stillbirth. The change in legislation now means women who were pregnant won't be held criminally responsible if they bring about the end of their own pregnancy, so long as it results in stillbirth. I'm not clear on whether the possibility that a living baby was born and left to die (criminal neglect) or killed (infantide) would ever be investigated as a few politicians have promised that this legislation will mean no further intrusive investigations after stillbirths - and it would take an autopsy to identify whether death occurred before or after birth. The distinction all starts to feel a bit academic at this point anyway so I can see the consistency in saying all or none should be sanctioned.
It's a bit of a wild west, imo, making schedule 3 meds easily available without in person assessment, and removing sanction for self administration at any point during pregnancy. It's an isolated incidence of libertarian healthcare in a system that is otherwise 100% socialised and centraised.

I'm not sneering. I'm being genuine. I genuinely think that is what some people would do, after what I've read.

As for schools of philosophy; erm, good for you, I guess? I lean towards utilitarianism, as I said. But you haven't actually said what you'd do in regards to the Trolley Problem.

Would you kill one person to save five? One to save a 100,000? One to save a million?

@LilyYeCarveSuns
"yes, women should be obliged to donate kidneys, bone marrow, blood, anything else their progeny may need to thrive up until the age of majority"

The issue is that then men would be required to do so as well, and besides, they're already restricting women via pregnancy - they don't need to do that too. By couching it within something that affects only women and not men, they restrict women's choices and freedoms without making it obvious that's what they're doing.

"Male and female parents / caregivers are held criminally responsibly for harm after birth."

Yes. I think the important distinction there is because they can relinquish a child to another adult or organisation, and walk away. A pregnant woman cannot just 'walk away' from a foetus inside her. It's a violation of the most profound kind, when not being actively consented to.

"The distinction all starts to feel a bit academic at this point anyway so I can see the consistency in saying all or none should be sanctioned."

I agree. Though ideally, I do think that any late term abortion or stillbirth should be treated as a red flag - it should trigger a non-intrusive/non-accusative health assessment, to see whether the woman is vulnerable and needs support, in an effort to prevent a repeat if it was indeed a late term self-abortion.

"It's a bit of a wild west, imo, making schedule 3 meds easily available without in person assessment, and removing sanction for self administration at any point during pregnancy."

I also agree that a face to face assessment should be required (but also made easily available), in order to assess the woman for vulnerability, coercion, or other abuse, and to ensure that should she be late term and want an abortion, she's offered the option of early induced labour, or a humane and safe abortion in hospital.

I just don't think that late term abortions should be criminalised, and I think they should be safely available, as imo, they are less bad than the alternatives.

Is there a reason you keep dropping off when you're asked any direct questions on your position and only come back in to attack others uncritically? PPs statement doesn't meet the definition of a strawman for me at all, and if you're going to complain it does you need to explain what about PPs argument she is exaggerating to make it easier to attack.

I think the issue with this line of argument is you're assuming everyone arguing for the right to access abortion due to the principal of bodily autonomy is automatically defending late term abortions only when they aren't. Otter and I have both clearly stated we don't like abortion on general and in particular late term abortions, but we support the principal of them being decriminalised. The issue with comments like this, and the same coming from Shrift,.that you don't oppose all abortion is that the arguments you are using to oppose late term abortion (nature, passiveness etc) can and are used by the anti abortion lobby to restrict all abortions so we're asking you to explore your line of thinking of what you really mean and why these principals suddenly exist or don't exist at a certain gestation. Applying people's support for bodily autonomy to bring 100% on board with a 39 week termination is a straw man argument in case Ringo wanted a better example. I'm not cheerleading anyone to abort that late and it's a really a silly nonexistent example, nobody literally nobody is having a termination at that point and if they were in a startling rare case there would be a traumatically difficult reason why which is why we don't think involving the police is the best course of action.

It is not misogynistic to give greater value to a pregnancy when its further along. We all do it. All things being equal a loss of pregnancy in the first 4 weeks is nothing like as traumatic as a still birth in the last 4 weeks.

Greater value than the mother's bodily autonomy and consent though and perhaps even her health - can you explain why?

I don’t think I am dodging anything. If they don’t like the answer I give, that’s on them.

If the motivation was to control women wouldn't posters be seizing on your examples and saying, yes, women should be obliged to donate kidneys, bone marrow, blood, anything else their progeny may need to thrive up until the age of majority. Or even beyond. That would maximise control of women's bodies, if that truly is the deeper motivation here.

It's not that the motivation is misogynstic, it's that the thought process and outcome is.

I'm still fascinated to know this too, according to their logic it is and Ringo would even be legal due to this decriminalisation change. But then the same posters also said it was a passive act so not as bad and even was common...some people's arguments are literally a maze to understand what it is they actually are arguing for 🫠

You haven't given any answers, how many times do you want posters to restate their questions to you? Isn't it boring to engage in a debate where you don't want to actually y'know defend your point? You're really just continuing to show you're here to agitate and time waste and not discussing in good faith at all.