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/

Otterly writes: 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?

If you are anti-abortion and aren't both a blood donor and registered to give bone marrow as living donor, you're a hypocrite. The sixteen weeks it takes for a woman to replenish her red cells between donation sessions is the same duration as a 24-week pregnant woman having to finish the pregnancy, and the bodily impact of donating blood is nothing compared to that of being pregnant.

If the degree of distress a woman experiences due to being pregnant is similar to the distress caused by rape she would qualify for a late-term, safe, surgical abortion. That's never been in question.

@OtterlyAstounding "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?
You want me to argue, Spock like, with no appeal to human emotion? For, what, the most efficient arrangement of human society? Maximising GDP? What could be a purely rational argument for any law, devoid of emotion? I don't really understand what you're asking. The state of believing that the life of a foetus is valuable, and that value is unrelated to how its mother feels about her pregnancy, is an emotional state. Not purely emotional, but encompasing emotion, as well as reason and intuition. Same with the state of believing a mother has a respoinsibility to the life and well-being of her foetus/child. It feels like you're asking me, "how would you argue for this if you didn't care about anything, didn't feel anything?"

Are you in favour of a more kibbutz-like society, where no additional legal responsibility for a child is placed on a parent? So, no longer any such thing as criminal neglect? I can understand the argument that gestation puts too much of a demand on a mother, if she doesn't want the pregnancy to continue, even if she would otherwise be responsible for preserving her foetus's life and well-being. But you're saying here it just doesn't matter at all, the state of being a mother? You're no different to a stranger?

At times I think we're not far apart in our beliefs: you think a desire not to be pregnant, even very close to term, absolutely has more bearing on what should be done than the life of the foetus, whereas I think, the further along a pregnacy progresses the less absolute it is.

At other times I feel like we're speaking of completely different worlds, in completely different languages.

Laws based on gut feelings and emotions are bad laws. We are talking about a change to the law, not what we, by consensus or otherwise, find morally repugnant or emotionally unsettling.

Most people regard adultery as morally wrong, yet we don't criminalise it. Not everything that's morally wrong should be a crime. Laws exist to protect rights, not enforce morals.

"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."

I think you've seen something clearly here that I had completely missed.
There is an elision between the assertion that a woman's desire to end her pregnancy always trumps the value of the foetus' life, and the assertion that, because a woman doesn't want to continue her pregnancy to term, the foetus's life has no value.
I'm grateful for your clarity.

According to PPs on this thread it's totally different because they view pregnancy labour as a completely passive process, which I don't think any woman who's experienced either has ever said.

That's not the case.

a woman's desire to end her pregnancy always trumps the value of the foetus' life

is the case, without implying that the foetus is valueless.

Not only passive, but harmless.

The reality is that childbirth causes permanent changes to the pelvic floor and cervix, and that's when it goes well.

When it goes badly?

• Mum was left unconscious from haemorrage when she birthed me.
• Obstructed labour in a Western country means emergency caesarian section, a gash cut in the abdomen to extract the foetus and rush him off to NICU. In less-developed countries, you're looking at obstetric fistula, uterine rupture, and bladder rupture.

I'd much rather someone drilled a hole in one of my bones and took some of my marrow than go through childbirth of a baby I didn't want. The bad effects will be less and the recovery time shorter.

It's not about claiming that a foetus is as culpable as a rapist

What you are doing is characterising the late stage feotus itself as a rapist.

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 don't think any human should be required to continue with the kind of profound bodily violation a non-consensual pregnancy involves.

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.

Or if not a rapist, then at the very least a tool of the patriarchy in the phallic sense, implanted in a woman to violate her, as if she had no hand or part in it. So when the unwanted baby moves or kicks, she is symbolically being raped, repeatedly, by the patriarchy. And because she perceives her late-stage pregnancy in this way, we as a society have a duty to validate that perception by viewing her unborn child as a rapist, and punishing it accordingly. As with all your arguments, there is a fascinating internal logic; once your starting point is that the unborn late-stage foetus is unalive of course.

There are still term limits, but women who have later abortions are no longer sent to jail based on a 19th Century law.

@LilyYeCarveSuns If the degree of distress a woman experiences due to being pregnant is similar to the distress caused by rape she would qualify for a late-term, safe, surgical abortion. That's never been in question.

And yet we also have people on this thread saying that no doctor would abort a healthy baby, late term, unless the mother's life was immediately at risk. So which is it?

You want me to argue, Spock like, with no appeal to human emotion?

As Ouroboros says, laws based entirely on emotion are bad laws. Obviously, emotion comes into play, but it should be backed up by some kind of coherent framework. Otherwise your exact argument can be used to justify no abortion rights, for instance. "A mother has a responsibility to the life of her foetus", or "a foetus's life has value that outweighs the mother's autonomy" can be used to justify banning 12 week abortions as well as 28 week. Because it's not based on any clear, guiding line, it's based purely on wider society's shifting social mores.

You also talk a lot about 'mothers' and 'responsibilities' in regards to a pregnant woman who doesn't want to be a mother, and act as though it's self-evident that she should sacrifice her body to gestate and birth a human she doesn't even want because she's it's 'mother' and it's her 'baby' - but why does that fact (that the foetus is gestating in her) that mean she should lose her right to remove consent to another human using her body?

The state of believing that the life of a foetus is valuable, and that value is unrelated to how its mother feels about her pregnancy, is an emotional state.

Yes, and what you're doing is allowing emotion ("It's a cute baby and she's the mother!") to cloud the fact that in no other situation is a human being forced to allow invasive access to their body in order to save another human's life. Even in situations where they might be the reason the other human will die without help (say, an accidental injury) they are not required or expected to forfeit the ability to say 'no' to the usage of their body parts. They're not forced to donate organs, or marrow, skin, or blood.

Are you in favour of a more kibbutz-like society, where no additional legal responsibility for a child is placed on a parent?

As I've said, I'm talking in relation to the topic, which is foetuses. I clearly agreed that parents have a responsibility to: "Born children, who exist outside of their bodies, who they are consenting to be responsible for by remaining the legal guardians of."

I wish you had answered any of my other points - specifically:

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?

and:

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.

Do you really not understand that society having the ability to say, "Your reason for withdrawing consent to the use of your body by another human being isn't good enough, therefore we can legally force you to allow your body to be used without your consent," is morally wrong and dangerous?

That's what the system they have (and have had) in many places around the world, and it generally doesn't work out well, for women especially.

I'm sorry, but rape - a violation of the body - is simply the most analogous situation to the situation of pregnancy. That doesn't make a foetus a rapist, however, as it's not a perfect analogy - the foetus is not at fault, and has no ill-intent.

It's really interesting and telling that the only way you can accept a woman being given or wanting the right to say no to the use of her body is if the person or thing using it non-consensually is 'bad' and needs 'punishment'. In your mind, it's not enough that she simply says, 'no' and doesn't want her body to be used - the thing she says 'no' to must be bad and evil, because to not allow it to use her body is punishment.

When really, it's not about the foetus at all - it's about the woman exercising her rights over the usage of her body. The same rights that everyone else has.

My argument is simply that:

In no other situation is a human being forced to allow invasive access to their body, even in order to save another human's life.

Even in situations where they might be the reason the other human will die without help (say, an accidental injury) they are not required or expected to forfeit the ability to say 'no' to the usage of their body and donate a kidney, or part of a liver.

They're not forced to donate organs, or marrow, or even blood.

Their ability to refuse or withdraw consent to the usage of their body is total and absolute, even if the other person will die without their help.

Even if the other person is a saint, who does wonderful things for the world, and will be sorely missed by friends, family, and society at large, there is no requirement for a person to donate the use of their body to save another person's life.

So, why is it different with a foetus?

I'm sorry, but rape - a violation of the body - is simply the most analogous situation to the situation of pregnancy. That doesn't make a foetus a rapist, however, as it's not a perfect analogy - the foetus is not at fault, and has no ill-intent.

Yes the analogy works by characterising both rape and 'the situation of pregnancy' as a 'violation of the body'. Both require a violator. In your analogy the baby is the violator, ill-intented or not.

It's really interesting and telling that the only way you can accept a woman being given or wanting the right to say no to the use of her body is if the person or thing using it non-consensually is 'bad' and needs 'punishment'. In your mind, it's not enough that she simply says, 'no' and doesn't want her body to be used - the thing she says 'no' to must be bad and evil, because to not allow it to use her body is punishment.

I haven't said the 'thing' using her body is bad or needs punishment. It's your analogy.

They're not forced to donate organs, or marrow, or even blood.

I have no objection in principle to parents being mandated to donate to their children.

You are quoting someone else's words and ascribing their words to me.

A foetus isn't a rapist. It is using a woman's body for life support and doesn't have the right to do that.

Pregnancy is different in that the violator does not intend to do so, and has absolutely no agency in the situation. So while yes, the foetus is the violation, it is doing so through no choice of its own.

My analogy compares the profound violation of one's body being occupied and used non-consensually during pregnancy, to the similar violation of rape - the effects on the woman of having her ability to say 'no' to the usage of her body taken away from her.

So no, the foetus is not a rapist. If anything, the society that forces her to remain pregnant when it's medically possible to abort would be the rapist in the scenario.

You're also confusing rough analogy with exact like-for-like, which obviously it's not. I didn't say the foetus was bad, or required punishment - I said that society forcing a woman to endure the non-consensual usage of her body is bad. It's not about the foetus at all. It's about the woman's right to control the usage of her body by another human.

Interesting that you entirely skipped past this part of my comment, except for one small part where you talked about parents, which wasn't what I was talking about:

In no other situation is a human being forced to allow invasive access to their body, even in order to save another human's life.

Even in situations where they might be the reason the other human will die without help (say, an accidental injury) they are not required or expected to forfeit the ability to say 'no' to the usage of their body and donate a kidney, or part of a liver.

They're not forced to donate organs, or marrow, or even blood.

Their ability to refuse or withdraw consent to the usage of their body is total and absolute, even if the other person will die without their help.

Even if the other person is a saint, who does wonderful things for the world, and will be sorely missed by friends, family, and society at large, there is no requirement for a person to donate the use of their body to save another person's life.

So, why is it different with a foetus?

Re your thought experiment, Sanhedrin 75a:2 is very clear: "Let him die, and she may not engage in sexual intercourse with him."

She is not obliged to use her body to save him.

Additionally:

"And because she perceives her late-stage pregnancy in this way, we as a society have a duty to validate that perception by viewing her unborn child as a rapist, and punishing it accordingly."

It's interesting that you think a woman's own sense of bodily violation requires society's seal of approval in order to be 'valid'. As if a woman's perceptions and feelings about what is happening to her body aren't real unless society agrees with her - and if it doesn't, then clearly whatever she feels or perceives about the non-consensual usage of her own body must be 'wrong' and she must simply endure it.

It's an incredibly misogynistic mindset to hold.

Should it not be enough that a woman feels violated by the intimate use of her body by another human, and wishes to stop that violation?

That is fascinating - thank you for sharing!

Talmudic Judaism has had the "incel question" answered for a very very long time.

Thank you, yes I was asking if a late term abortion would continue to be illegal for doctors to perform (if there are no special reasons for it).

It does seem that in that case a woman who is not thought to have special reasons might self-induce a late abortion.

Do the two ends really meet? The thing to hope is that in practice women will not get to that stage of desperation and try on their own.

One would hope, I suppose, that providing telemedical services would enable abortions to happen even earlier than the average now, as it removes the time consuming hoops of arranging, waiting for, and attending in-person appointments.

Yes, because Offences Against The Person Act 18wheneveritwas and Abortion Act 1967 will still apply to doctors, backstreet abortionists, and anyone else who isn't the woman herself.

I'm aware of no evidence to suggest that Northern Irish hospitals have filled with women taking black market abortion pills in third trimester. Generally, women decide and act fairly quickly and a change of heart late on is rare.

So no, the foetus is not a rapist. If anything, the society that forces her to remain pregnant when it's medically possible to abort would be the rapist in the scenario.

Yes I understood the analogy that is why I said "Or if not a rapist, then at the very least a tool of the patriarchy in the phallic sense, implanted in a woman to violate her, as if she had no hand or part".

I didn't say the foetus was bad, or required punishment

You have though, even if that was not your intent. You have used the language of colonisation and painted the foetus as the oppressor; The woman is "occupied"; "forcing its way out of her vagina"; "the intrusion"; "no one other than a foetus has the right to commandeer someone else's body for life support". You leave little room for doubt about who the baddy is here.

Interesting that you entirely skipped past this part of my comment, except for one small part where you talked about parents, which wasn't what I was talking about.

Because surely parents are the only ones relevant in that scenario. A mother is forced to donate her body to her child for the duration of a pregnancy; so to be equitable, parents are forced to donate life-saving tissue to their child if the need arises.

The Talmud definitely has some interesting stuff. 👍

You say the foetus is there without the woman's consent but - this may be nitpicking but arguably that wouldn't be the case at the start unless there'd been a contraceptive failure or rape. But sadly both of those are too common.....Still, in most cases a woman should be able to abort before late term.

You know sometimes there isn't a 'baddy'. Just a bad situation.

Also, if you won't engage in good faith, by addressing my last points, which you refuse to do, then there's no point in discussing the issue with you.