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/

I think you're missing PPs point that they won't come out and say that because the next obvious question is why only women? That's why they don't want to answer about anything that could apply to men and women because they want to paint the restriction of women as something uniquely natural.

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

Otter has already addressed this quite clearly and no one has answered so maybe you will - when is this viability? Natural viability is way after 24 weeks and of the principal is that it's wrong to fatally harm a foetus why does this only come into play a certain point? Why can't we apply this harm to foetuses to male.lifestyle choices that science shows has bad health outcomes for features and pregnant women, if harm prevention is the principal? And given the difference between a baby once born and foetus is that the baby once born can be given to others to care for if unable or unwanted, others can support, there's no longer a risk to health or life for the mother whereas no one can take over the pregnancy or labour or take on those risks so I'd be interested for you to expand more of the similarities between these examples.

Agreed and this is usually the case with internalised misogyny. I don't think many women realise they're enforcing misogynistic standards on others because they aren't doing it consciously but the end result is the same.

@OtterlyAstounding "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."
Do you think posters are lying, pretending to believe society should sanction self-inducing stillbirth because the life of a viable foetus outweighs the desire of a woman to not continue a pregnacy to term, when in actual fact they secretly delight in the thought of controlling women? Or are you diagnosing a subconscious misogyny, that you know their minds better than they themselves?
In my experience discussions are only really worthwhile when people are engage openly and honestly with eachother - with what is actually said, and not what is impuned. If you think your interlucutor is dissembling, or doesn't even know their own mind, imo just move on.
"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. ... I just don't think that late term abortions should be criminalised"
I wasn't talking about investigations to distinguish between spontaneous and self-induced terminations. I'm talking about situations where a woman takes mifepristone and misoprostol at 29, 30, 31 weeks, goes into labour, and then delivers either stillbirth or live baby who is left to die or killed - carrying out an investigation to distinguish between the former (now legal) and the latter (still criminal neglect or infanticide). I think it's a very big deal that politicians have said that, going forward, these investigations won't take place - but I also accept that perhaps there isn't much difference between inducing stillbirth, and inducing birth then leaving the child to die. Sorry, it's all pretty awful to write about and I don't want to dwell on something distressing for the sake of it. But a huge change has been agreed to, with the passing of this legislation.

@LilyYeCarveSuns
Do you think posters are lying, pretending to believe society should sanction self-inducing stillbirth because the life of a viable foetus outweighs the desire of a woman to not continue a pregnacy to term, when in actual fact they secretly delight in the thought of controlling women? Or are you diagnosing a subconscious misogyny, that you know their minds better than they themselves?
In my experience discussions are only really worthwhile when people are engage openly and honestly with eachother - with what is actually said, and not what is impuned. If you think your interlucutor is dissembling, or doesn't even know their own mind, imo just move on.

I think people are doing a lot of mental gymnastics on this thread to do anything but actually engage with the critique that the outcome of some posters ethics is misogynistic. No one has actually critically answered why that isn't the case and then when they only follow up by saying "of course you think it's misogynistic you love feeling oppressed, you have penis envy, you resent men and wish you could be a man" that their internalised misogyny is pretty clearly stated tbh

ETA if you think Otter or I are misinterpreting their intention did you have any input on why they don't support any restrictions to bodily autonomy that could be applied equally to men and women?

Stop asking pointless questions like, ‘do you think my friend who got the totally legal abortion should be charged’?????!!!!????

Talk about time wasting

Opposition to drug dealing, buying sex, and buying babies is about saying that the following behaviours are wrong and it's in the public interest to prosecute those who behave these ways:

• selling noxious substances that can kill people
• paying to rape a trafficked woman, which is the reality for many prostituted women, and treating women like rentable chattels
• buying a human baby and treating its mother's body like a rentable commodity

It's not about taking women's autonomy away.

I think abandoning a newborn, if you trek up a mountain to deliberately expose it to the elements/ wildlife like the vikings occasionally did is an active process and pretty much the same as killing the baby.

I think if its abandoned straight after birth, on a doorstep or somewhere similar the above does not apply.

I am somewhat torn on the giving birth alone in a field and then just leaving it there. If its silent the mother could assume its dead already.

Your second question is irrelevant. Its not possible.

With regards to blood/ marrow donation,
If people stop donating paying them would be my preferred option.

And in answer to a previous question, if a stanger, a grown ass man was using me as a life support system, i would kill him quicker than if it was a newborn.

What Whyohwhy said.

I think the extent to which posters are engaging in moral dissonance, tying themselves in knots to avoid even the most minor infringement on bodily autonomy (blood donation) that might affect men, in order to save lives, while insisting that women should suffer through a profound, non-consensual violation in order to save a foetus, is very telling.

I mean, pro-lifers will say they're against all abortion because all lives are precious, and advocate ferociously for foetuses, but then many of them are also in favour of policies that cause avoidable suffering to born children. They say they care about children, and they may even believe they do, but anti-abortion arguments for the most part are held by people who also have very little value for born lives, and certainly wouldn't be in favour of enforced blood and bone marrow donation, because ultimately it's not about 'saving lives' it's about controlling women's bodies.

This is similar, but to a less extreme extent.

I'm engaging honestly, but it's difficult to engage with people who refuse to acknowledge that their own motivations appear morally dissonant, and point to an origin in patriarchal views. I've put forward many sincere points and questions, and I've tried to answer everyone else's fully and seriously, but frankly, not many people are returning the favour and answering my points. I'm not sure why not.

As for the difference between infanticide at birth and feticide - personally I think the approach in both cases should be focused on a health approach, and prevention.

A woman who does such a thing, when she has access to abortion earlier on, is clearly extremely vulnerable or disordered - due to abuse, personality disorders, addiction, or other mental health issues, and needs help to ensure it doesn't happen again - but she's also not generally going to be a danger to anyone else but herself, and future pregnancies. So criminalising her seems unnecessary.

The problem with "Their cut off point will vary usually depending on viability of foetus and health of the mother." is that you can't make a law on the basis of something so subjective.

This thread is talking about a change to the law, not people's personal moral compasses.

So if you gave birth in a field outside your house, and left the baby there, still definitely alive, in order to (passively) allow it to naturally die, would that be worse than abortion?

It's a thought experiment. Why can't you answer it?

We don't pay women to stay pregnant when they want an abortion. Why should the rules be different for blood and marrow donations? Which are a far lesser violation.
Your answer makes it clear you think that men (and non-pregnant women, although most women will be pregnant at some point in their lives) should be valued, and bribed, and that overriding their autonomy even for something so minor as a blood donation is unacceptable. If they don't want to donate, then the child or adult who needs that donation will die, and that's fine by you. But a pregnant woman must be forced to non-consensually stay pregnant for...some reason?

And your last answer makes it excruciatingly clear it's not about preserving human life at all, it's specifically about making sure that past a certain point, pregnant women stay pregnant, for some reason.

Thank you. I think your answers are morally incoherent, and show up a subconscious ingrained patriarchal view of women deserving less right to bodily autonomy than men, but I do genuinely appreciate that you answered.

Soooo many other questions have been asked.

I can only surmise you have no answers.

But we can and have made a law based on address of visibility and health of the mother. That's literally why they're are different time limits. That works perfectly fine. The cut off limit effectively 'on demand' is later than I'd like, but the twin track system is sound and has been for a long time.

In this country, whilst consent to post-mortem organ donation is now presumed, it can still be actively opted out of. A corpse has the right to say no to their organs being used to save other people. But some posters think women should be criminalised for self-administered abortions.

These posters are misogynists who think that pregnant women should have fewer rights than corpses.

If you genuinely think that there is no point in this discussion.
You are the one who brought up the trolley problem.
I haven't said what I think because it's an irrelevant abstraction.
As far as abortion law goes it isn't being changed. DIY abortions remain illegal. The change is decrimalising the mother in these circumstances.
This leaves women in a vulnerable position with regard to outside pressure and abuse. If the only contact is via a phone consultation there is no proper safeguarding. There are few late pregnancy terminations currently. If there's an increase it could likely be due to abuse. Bad men will exploit any loop hole (surely you'll agree with that)
We have had a settled concensus about abortions for decades, the law was changed some years ago re no. of weeks. This is similar to trans pushing the boundaries and meeting a backlash. If we do experience a backlash it's ideologues like you I'll blame.
(On the trolley problem ‐ the real question is would you sacrifice yourself?)

Tangentially, according to Google AI and its sources, "Babies born at 28 weeks (extremely preterm) have an 80–90% survival rate. While most survive, they face increased risks of long-term health complications, including cerebral palsy (approx. 9% risk), learning disabilities (~15%), and chronic pulmonary or cardiovascular issues. Nearly 60% may have cognitive impairments, though most lead independent lives.
Roughly 5–10% have severe lifelong disabilities. Survivors have a higher chance of a disability pension and are less likely to have children themselves compared to term-born peers."

That doesn't sound overly 'viable', really. To me, legally 'viable' should mean 'can live on their own, without extensive, intensive medical intervention'.

But that's by the by.

As ouroboros said, ultimately any argument that seeks to criminalise women for self abortion is saying that pregnant women have fewer rights than a corpse. And I don't personally think that's acceptable.

1. The 1967 Abortion Act regulates the circumstances under which health care professionals can perform abortions. It doesn't govern the woman's actions towards herself.
2. That law is not itself without problems, creating a situation where a health care professional is having to consider patient care decisions through a filter of "will I go to jail?" as well as "is this best for the patient?". No other medical procedure is subject to such legislation. We saw in the case of Savita Halappanavar how such legal hobbling can result in harm to patients. Fortunately, in the UK, the hobbles are looser than they were in Ireland, however that spectre of "will I go to jail if I gauge the risks in a way that a lay jury don't agree with?" is still there.

I'm not asking you if she should be charged! I've asked you very clearly where the benefit was for her abortion being criminal if the red tape wasn't performed given you're arguing incorrectly that there is no red tape and that we have abortion on demand or that we need to keep the red tape regardless of the distress it causes some women. Asking you to empathise with the real application of these laws on women isn't pointless, how insulting.

@Whyohwhyohwhy26
"when is this viability? Natural viability is way after 24 weeks"
I don't think it's a gestalt, which is part of why it's difficult to discern right from wrong. But now, even at 38 weeks, it's legal to self administer mifepristone and misoprostol to induce stillbirth, which is absolutely beyond natural viability.
"and of the principal is that it's wrong to fatally harm a foetus why does this only come into play a certain point?"
I would say because the separation between mother and child takes time. Early on in the pregnancy there is one being: a woman with potential-future-life inside her, and she is free to decide whether that potential develops to become a separate being. Once that separation is complete the life of the foetus has value in its own right and its mother should continue her pregnancy to term.
"Why can't we apply this harm to foetuses to male.lifestyle choices that science shows has bad health outcomes for features and pregnant women, if harm prevention is the principal?"
I wasn't applying a principal of harm prevention. I was using the word "harm" to refer to both neglect of and violence towards a newborn. It was an unclear choice of words.
"And given the difference between a baby once born and foetus is that the baby once born can be given to others to care for if unable or unwanted, others can support,"
This is true if a woman gives birth in the presence of others who are willing and able to care for the newborn. That won't be true if she inducs labour by self administering mifepristone and misoprostol late in the pregnacy and delivers a live baby.
"there's no longer a risk to health or life for the mother"
I think it's right that we allow termination of a pregnancy up to term, in a healthcare sertting, if the mother's life is at risk. I don't think a pregnant woman's obligation to protect the life of her viable foetus is absolutre.
"whereas no one can take over the pregnancy or labour or take on those risks so I'd be interested for you to expand more of the similarities between these examples."
I don't think it makes a difference that the pregnant woman is the only one who can sustain the life of a foetus before birth if she is capable of doing so. If my husband and I neglect our child we will be held criminally responsible for the injury / death that results. Our neighbour won't be. The extra responsibility a mother has for her own child is continuous, from before birth until majority. The child's father / other mother takes on this additional responsibility from birth. Yes, there is an option for a parent to relinquish this responsibility after birth - but they have to go through the formal, legal process. They will never be free to just decide they're not responsible for sustaining the life of their child any more.
In my opinion the similarites are obvious, but I can try to elabourate further if you want. The glaring dissimilarity is there is only one parent capable of sustaining the foetus's life before birth, and she cannot relinquish that responsibility until after birth.

It's really depressing that on a feminist forum women's real life experiences are repeatedly called irrelevant and pointless. @RingoJuice what exactly brings you to feminism and women's right when every real life story given to you of women being prosecuted, dying due to abortion criminalisation and having unnecessary distress is all irrelevant and pointless in your eyes?

I mentioned it as an aside, not a major focus, iirc. You're the one who went in depth on it.

It's a little rude to refuse to answer me in regards to the trolley problem, and then ask me another question about it. But no, I wouldn't sacrifice myself, as I'm not unbiased regarding my own life.

I've made my opinion clear that I think face to face consultations should be required, for the woman's safety. I'm not necessarily in favour of all aspects of this law, I'm in favour of women not being criminalised, and late term abortion (or early induced labour) being safely available, through a health pathway that seeks to prevent future late term abortions.

Plenty of women too if your friend group is anything to go by.

Right, so once they're separate in your opinion, at the point when abortion is no longer allowed because the foetus is viable, a pregnant woman should be able to at least request the inducement of early labour then, I presume? As it's now a separate being, and she does not consent to having another person inside her body?

Yes

It's interesting to read @selffellatingouroborosofhate 's post directly above @Imnobody4 's.
IMO it's hyperbolic nonsens to say a corpse has the right to refuse its organs being donated. It's family mebers who have the right to refuse the organ donation. And with this legislative change, and its complete lack of safeguards, it's my belief that there are many family members who will now have, if not the right, at least the means and opportunity to decide on behalf of a pregnant woman whether or not she gets to continue her pregnancy to term - with a neat guarantee it will never be investigated further.

If a person opts out of donating their organs, I don't believe their family can override that after death...? If so, then yes, a corpse has more right to say 'no' than a pregnant woman does.