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/

But I’m talking to extremists who maintain with a straight face that a corpse has more rights than a pregnant woman.

The corpse, prior to death, was able to say in writing "do not use my organs to save someone else's life". Criminalisation of abortion creates a situation where a woman cannot say "do not use my body to save someone else's life". This situation does give women fewer rights than a corpse. Recognising this is far from "extremist", it's logical.

You're ignoring the other point on the image I posted, which is that no one other than a foetus has the right to commandeer someone else's body for life support. Why should a foetus have more rights than anyone else, especially when those rights are to the detriment of exclusively women?

Ask the Northern Irish. It's been decriminalised there for over six years.

Prompt access to early medical abortion (EMA) is far safer than carrying to term is and is of comparable risk to early miscarriage. The NHS is underresourced and telemedicine allows physicians to issue EMA to more women sooner. This includes women living remotely, like the remote corners of Scotland, who might struggle to travel to a hospital appointment. It includes women working in low-paid shift work who can't afford a day off for a present-in-person appointment but can take a phone call during a break.

I'd say because it's still illegal for the Doctor they'll still take as much precaution as they can to screen patients. That I know of there isn't any evidence to suggest it would increase due to decriminalisation because if anything it gives women more opportunity to approach medical help if she's contemplating an abortion outside the legislation to be supported without fear of prosecution.

Fair enough!

If I'm remembering correctly (I'll try to find the article if not) access to abortion was still an issue for many women in NI for a few years after decriminalisation because they didn't have abortion services near them and still had to travel to other areas in NI or travel to England for a F2F consultation or were buying unregulated pills by post which is why telemedicine services imo benefit more people than the alternative of not having that and offering women's abortion in principal but they're not able to actually access it.

There isn't, to my knowledge, any evidence to suggest an increase in women using black market pills later than 24 weeks in NI during that timeframe. Which is what some posters are worried will happen in the rest of the UK under decriminalisation.

By evicted, I mean that if a separate person (by your terms) is inside a woman's body, and she no longer consents to the intrusion, she should be able to make them get out. Whether it's a foetus, or a man.

I think the life and wellbeing of the foetus are best secured by pregnancy continuing to term so if the pregnant woman can do this healthfully she should.

But the woman no longer consents to having this separate person inside her. She should be able to withdraw consent and remove the person. Why 'should' she continue? In no other situation is she expected to allow access to her body once she's withdrawn consent.

I've already said, several times, that personally, I think abortion pills should be accessed through face to face consultations, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up with me?

I'd say because it's still illegal for the Doctor

@Whyohwhyohwhy26 Do you mean a doctor should not give an abortion after 24 weeks (unless to save the mother)?

If so, it it would mean a girl or woman would have no option but to self-induce a late abortion if they were desperate. This would be the most harmful way of having a late abortion, both for her and for the baby.

Yes, I mean, outside extreme situations (such as covid) I think face to face is much safer for women, but easy access to face to face consultations needs to be provided where women face barriers to it.

This is a good point. I'm in favour of face to face if possible, but in the case of women being unable to access a physical appointment, while telemedical is not ideal, it's preferable to forcing her to remain pregnant.

Personally I don't think decriminalisation will increase the number of late term abortions, because in most circumstances, a woman has no reason not to seek abortion as early as possible.

After the Pelicot case, you think women aren't oppressed?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=wtE9cbwaBnE

The commonality between rapists and anti-choicers is the belief that someone other than the woman has the right to decide what happens to that woman's body. Whether it's as a walking vagina to fuck or a walking uterus to gestate babies, we are dehumanised.

Agreed, I don't think there was in uptick in that but it was still an issue that women needing early abortions asap were left with choosing between travelling or online pills where telemedicine wasn't available.

I'm confused about what you're confused about. It would be illegal for a doctor to perform an illegal abortion still. Nothing about the limits and regulations has changed. A woman can still access late term abortion for the reasons allowed. I agree about that means someone may self induce a later term abortion illegally which is the most harmful, but the only way to prevent that would be full decriminalisation, would you support that?

Like I said, I think the current model is convenient for women with the knowledge and support to access telemedical abortion safely, while all the risks are bourne by the most vulnerable women: life too chaotic to know how far along they are, poor understanding of symptoms that would indicate they need face to face medical attention, no friends to support them, abusive parters who might coerce them &c. &c.
I can't feel happy about the fact that there's no money to be found for providing all women with access to safe abortion.

Personally I don't think decriminalisation will increase the number of late term abortions, because in most circumstances, a woman has no reason not to seek abortion as early as possible.

Agree. It seems incredibly unlikely that you would wait until your pregnancy is far advanced, at a point when doctors can no longer legally carry out an abortion, and then decide you want to terminate the pregnancy.

It might happen in a few cases where women didn't realise they were pregnant until they were far advanced.

There's another obvious point, which I'm not sure has been made, which is that it is extremely difficult to terminate your own pregnancy at an advanced stage. All the pills do is induce labour, so the chances are you're going to have to give birth alone, unaided, possibly to a live baby.

@OtterlyAstounding
"By evicted, I mean that if a separate person (by your terms) is inside a woman's body, and she no longer consents to the intrusion, she should be able to make them get out. Whether it's a foetus, or a man."

Does that mean you think it should be decriminalised for doctors to provide a woman with abortion up to term? I don’t think a pregnant woman can “make them get out” safely, on her own. That’s why I mentioned how crazy risky it would be for a mother to self administer mifepristone and misoprostol late in pregnancy, away from a healthcare setting. I thought you were arguing in favour of the current legislation, the decriminalisation of self-administered abortion. But I think you’re actually arguing that properly safe abortion, in a healthcare facility, should be legal for any reason a pregnant woman should request it, right up to term? Sorry for the misunderstanding.

" But the woman no longer consents to having this separate person inside her. She should be able to withdraw consent and remove the person. Why 'should' she continue? "

Because she’s the foetus’s mother. This responsibility to preserve her child’s life will continue after birth. If, for example, a child is drowning in shallow water a parent will be held criminally responsible for failing to intervene, but a bystander won’t be. Even if it’s chlorinated water and the parent will break out into terrible welts if they come into contact with chlorine. Even if they don’t consent to getting into the water. Parents have a legal responsibility to preserve the life of their kids, way above that of a bystander.You can’t decide, in the moment of a child’s need, “I don’t consent to this any more,” and be free of that responsibility. The difference during gestation is that there’s no other parent who shares the responsibility, and there’s no opportunity to hand over parental responsibility. It’s a different degree of responsibility for a gestating parent, but it’s not a different kind of responsibility. You can’t just walk away from it.

"In no other situation is she expected to allow access to her body once she's withdrawn consent."

There is no situation equivalent to pregnancy.

"I've already said, several times, that personally, I think abortion pills should be accessed through face to face consultations, so I'm not sure why you're bringing that up with me?"

See above, I thought you were arguing for the current legal set up.

@selffellatingouroborosofhate I’m struggling to get my head around your comparison of rape and no-longer-wanted pregnancy. In the one case, a man forces another woman for his sexual satisfaction. In the other, a woman who no longer wants to be pregnant has to persevere with it until a baby is born. Now it’s my turn to pull out the “something I never thought I’d see on a feminist forum” trope: male orgasm is as valuable as a newborn child. I don't know what to say. You're post makes me really angry and I wonder if you actually believe this stuff, about corpses, and women like me who think late term abortions should be sanctioned by the state being like Gisèle Pelicot's husband, or if at some point it just becomes a rhetorical game for you? Have I misunderstood you?

@LilyYeCarveSuns "Does that mean you think it should be decriminalised for doctors to provide a woman with abortion up to term?"

Actually, I do. I think induced labour (with or without adoption) should be offered first, and it should require a few hoops to jump through, but ultimately I don't think any human should be required to continue with the kind of profound bodily violation a non-consensual pregnancy involves.

I also don't think that most women denied late term abortion would give up their child for adoption, and I do not think that the kind of woman who is chaotic and vulnerable enough to not seek out abortion until late term, is likely to be a good mother. Think of mothers like Verphy Kudi, Constance Marten, and the woman who kept her baby hidden in a drawer, as well as the many other mothers who killed their children through neglect, or through heinous abuse, or stood by and allowed a man to torture them to death. If they'd had abortions, it would've avoided a lot of suffering.

I think that on balance, while late term abortion (or indeed any abortion) is ideally to be avoided, and more needs to be done to ensure unwanted pregnancies don't occur or are dealt with swiftly, it is less-bad to provide a safe late term abortion than the alternatives.

And there's no risk of a slippery slope, as birth is a hard line in the sand - when the baby is using the woman's body non-consensually, she should be entitled at the very least to induce labour, if not abort. Once the baby is outside of her, it's her duty to either care for it, or relinquish it to be cared for by someone else. Either way, it no longer requires the non-consensual use of her body.

"Because she’s the foetus’s mother."

So? What on earth does that have to do with anything? Genuinely. Why does that matter, in rational terms that aren't just an appeal to emotion?

A woman can be married to a man, but that doesn't mean (anymore) that he can use her body whenever he likes. I fail to see what a woman's role in regards to someone has to do with her consent for the use of her body being rendered null and void.

"Parents have a legal responsibility to preserve the life of their kids"

Yes. Born children, who exist outside of their bodies, who they are consenting to be responsible for by remaining the legal guardians of.

"There is no situation equivalent to pregnancy."

No. You're right. No other situation is as deeply and profoundly violating as being forced to gestate a child against one's will.

The most similar situations would probably be either rape, or the violinist argument, but neither fully capture it.

Hm. Here's a thought experiment.... if someone doesn't have sex with you - specifically you - on a regular basis for the next 9 months, then they'll die. Literally just die, because of circumstances entirely outside of their control - they're a victim in this situation. Should they be allowed to rape you to stay alive? Should you be forced to have sex with them despite you not consenting? Is it immoral of you not to have sex with them despite not wanting to?

Yes, unwanted pregnancy is just as bad as rape.

Disclaimer: Let me be clear, this is just me reversing the scenarios and the type of framing that you used to make a point, NOT because I think rape is some minor thing. I in fact think any non-consensual use of the body is horrific.

In the one case, past the point of 24 weeks, a society forces a woman to allow her body to be occupied by another human for several more months, in pain, potentially nauseous, exhausted, risking her life, damaging her physical and mental health, and undergoing either major surgery or a much larger object than say, 28 weeks gestation, forcing its way out of her vagina, all to produce a human being that she doesn't want but is now either forced to raise or adopt out, just because they think she should have to be a mother.

In the other, a man just thrusts his penis in and out of a woman's vagina when she doesn't want him to, and she simply has to persevere for five minutes.

So, which is worse for a woman to undergo? Or are they both equally bad in different ways, perhaps? (Personally, I've never had an unwanted pregnancy, but from what I imagine, I think I'd find that worse than rape, which is horrific and damaging.)

What you fail to understand is that it shouldn't be about whether or not you think a reason is 'valuable enough' to override a woman's ability to withdraw consent. Because that's what you're saying - if you or the powers that be in society think that a woman's lack of consent doesn't matter anymore, because the person who wants to override her lack of consent has a 'valuable reason', then you're saying a woman's consent to the usage of her body is a farce that's conditional on society agreeing that her reason is good enough. That's the kind of argument that says marital rape or a ban on all abortion is fine, because the people in charge think those reasons are 'valuable enough'

What it should be, in my opinion, is that nothing should override a woman's ability to withdraw consent regarding the use of her body by another human.

It's not about claiming that a foetus is as culpable as a rapist, because that's clearly not the case. A foetus is by definition an innocent party because he or she has no agency; a man has agency and so can be culpable.

It's not about claiming that pregnancy and birth are more psychologically traumatising than rape, although the existence of secondary tokophobia indicates that pregnancy and birth can be traumatising. The rapist is a "moral agent", ie someone who knows right from wrong, and the knowledge that someone has set out to hurt you can and often does make the psychological trauma worse.

It's about saying that no one has the right to commandeer a woman's body for any purpose, no matter how blameless the commandeerer nor how noble the purpose, because it's hers.

Otterly understands perfectly and makes good points about how pregnancy and birth are physically more of an ordeal than most rapes are.

In spite of your logical arguments to the contrary, forced-to-be-kept Babies in our society are seen as being different from penis forced-into a-woman rapists or forced-from-a/person bone marrow/kidney etc donations.

I think it is because the baby’s individual human life is seen as existing in its own right at that late stage. I do see your logic from the female body’s point of view - that all these scenarios entail a sort of enforced parasitic colonisation of her body.

I think it goes too far though to think the equivalence of the situation should be that the late term baby never matters at all except when the mother accepts it.

This is especially given that in the U.K., in cases of where the baby has a severe abnormality that would impair its life, continuing the pregnancy would be a danger to the mothers life, or danger to her health or mind, a late abortion could be allowed - even before this change in the law. That flexibility seems preferable to saying a late term baby never counts at all ( so long as it’s still in the womb).

It being the case that once out of the womb the typical jury will say - “Go to prison you evil murderess” to a very young girl who has killed the baby she had just had alone in the night after having hidden/denied it). How hypocritical it all is.

And it's certainly not about claiming that a man's orgasm is as valuable as a foetus.

no one has the right to commandeer a woman's body for any purpose, no matter how blameless the commandeerer nor how noble the purpose

There'd be far fewer abortions if men kept the consequences of their orgasms off women's cervixes.

This change isn't to make doctor-facilitated abortion on demand legal at all stages, but to decriminalise a legislative inconsistency where a pregnant woman can legally chain-smoke, drink like a fish, eat unpasteurised cheese, and take heroin without being criminalised for harming her baby, but can't take two very specific tablets without being criminalised.

It being the case that once out of the womb the typical jury will say - “Go to prison you evil murderess” to a very young girl who has killed the baby she had just had alone in the night after having hidden/denied it).

Once born, breathing, and no longer reliant on a specific person for life support, that baby can be looked after by anyone willing to step up. We rightly have State-provided services for dealing with cases of mothers relinquishing children. It's rightly deemed murder when a child has an existence independant of his or her mother.

I would hope that, in the specific example you give, the investigation would also ask how a "very young girl" came to be pregnant and avoiding prenatal care in the first place and that the judge would consider her age and the fact that she has been raped underage, possibly incestuously, as mitigation when sentencing.

Every single abortion starts with a man or boy putting his dick into a woman or girl. Every single one.

So your argument appears to boil down to, "Because society says so, thus it should be". To me, that's a dangerous position to take.

Let's say that medical technology somehow has a wonderful advancement in the next few years - enough that a foetus can be viable (60% survivability rate) from 14 weeks gestation. Of course, it's far preferable, with much better outcomes, for the baby to be brought to term, just as it is currently, but it's still an individual human life that could exist in its own right from 14 weeks.

Would it then be appropriate to drop the limit on abortion to 14 weeks, and force women to remain pregnant until 40 weeks if they don't realise they're pregnant before that cut off? By your argument, it seems that's the case.

With bone marrow or blood donations in particular, they are minimally invasive compared to months of pregnancy, and would save the lives of already existing people. So why are they different?