Anti-abortion acitvists do rather represent the worst of human beings,don't they?

[SolidGoldBrass]

Dishonest, ignorant, supersitious, woman-hating and sexually dysfunctional. What's not to despise?

If you don't approve of abortion, don't have one yourself. it's fair enough not to like abortion. It's not fair enough to actively involve yourself in removing other people's human rights for your own stupid malevolent faulty reasoning.

(Yes I am posting this and going to bed. I will be back tomorrow...)

SDMP: Are you sure about that? I wouldn't have thought that 'moderate learning disabilities' could be identified in utero.

Telling, I honestly don't know. I don't think the law is the best mechanism for handling this.

I'm not on this thread to set laws though, I'm arguing with the premises set in the OP.

very interesting thread and the attacks on SolidGoldBrass are extremely pointless. arguing about someone's emotive language is pointless, its their right to say it and the only person it offends are the people who seem to think women's wombs are public property.

I too have had an abortion in which i felt nothing but relief. i was young, i was scared, and it would have been a massive mistake.
i had a second abortion a few years later that i did feel more for. i was in an awful relationship and the idea of having someone to love, and to love me unconditionally appealed to me greatly. i aborted again because i knew to have the child would only be for my own selfish reasons, that is my fear of having another abortion and having someone to fill the gap in my life.

i have also lost a baby. a boy. his sisters, my DD's, survived.
he was lost because he was severly disabled. it was late term. to continue to support him we would have compromised his sisters and we had to choose to let him go.
i would still abort a severely disabled child as i dont think that i, my family, my life is strong enough to give a disabled child, and my other children, what they all need. i am always in awe of mothers who care for their children with SN, and am ashamed that i could not give a child with SN the life they deserve.

i received amazing counselling after the loss of my baby boy, but none after my two terminations. after my second was when i really needed someone to open up to, to tell me that i was not mad or pathetic or selfish.

im not sure if allowing abortions up to full term without medical reason should be allowed. i think the laws we have in place now work well, dont they?

Plenty of syndromes where you would expect mod LD's to be the most likely outcome - for example -Down Syndrome. Usual expected outcome moderate LD's - and definitely compatible with life (even in cases with pretty complicated heart defects the expectation is that there's a very good chance of life- as surgery is performed these days - different outcome entirely of course a few years back when it wasn't performed). Termination allowed up to birth.

I wouldn't have a problem with that (I'm not all that interested in people's reasons for termination, certainly don't distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' reasons as some do) if that was the case for all pregnancies. Either a woman has full control until birth, or she doesn't. I don't think the law should ascribe different rights to different 'types' of babies - either a fetus has rights to existence before birth or it doesn't - should be the same for all. As restricting termination for conditions certain to end in death such as anencephaly would be beyond cruel much simpler to allow it for all up to birth. I can't see many people choosing the option of a late termination anyway.

CarmenS

"Few people would argue that infanticide should be legalised to suit the mother's convenience"

Have you actually read ANY of my posts here?

You have NO idea how a woman feels when she is faced with an unwanted pregnancy. To say that the foetus has more rights to a life than the mother does is ridiculous in the extreme.

I can tell you now that if I didn't terminate, my life, my children's lives & my husbands would be changed beyond recognition. I would not be the person I am now. I am not changing my live that drastically for a foetus. There is a strong chance that if forced to carry on I would have done something to myself. Or my marriage would be in tatters, possibly that my husband would have walked out.

But that's OK, right...because I had a baby I didn't want. I had a baby I resent. Yeah, I bet when that baby is 16 it feels great that its birth bought on the downfall of its parents marriage & sent its mum mad/suicidal! Come on, get real!

STOP FORCING WOMEN TO HAVE BABIES THEY DON'T WANT!

You've quoted me completely out of context, differentnameforthis and attributed an argument to me that I never actually made so all the shouting is rather wasted.

Also, how on earth do you know what I have any idea about? Do you know my whole medical history?

"What in teh real world, with no abortions?"

If I couldn't get access to a safe, legal termination, I would have driven my car, high speed into something. I kid you not.

Such was my desire not to be pregnant.

OK Carmen, I'll rephrase...

It SOUNDS like you have no idea about it.

Where did I say women shouldn't have access to abortions?

The only thing I've actually opposed on this thread is 39 week abortion on healthy babies.

If you read everything I've written, I'm clearly not on a pro-life soapbox, I'm questioning the 'woman's body, woman's choice' rhetoric in the OP.

SDMP: Fair enough. I think we generally sort of agree with each other here anyway.

Carmen, I was quoting someone else!

And by saying you are not on a pro life soapbox, but then go on to point out your argument is with 'her body her choice' kinda does sound pro life to me!

I am pro - a woman doing what she feels is right for her. I don't think there is a stampede of women wanting 39 week terminations for the hell of it. To have a termination that late would be be done lightly, imo. In fact as someone said previously, if you don't want it, you want it out asap. I only waited 4 weeks because it was Christmas. I wanted it out as soon as I saw those 2 lines.

It can sound however you want, but it doesn't make it so.

That's exactly what is wrong with this thread and what I'm questioning. The division into two camps of radical pro-choice, heroically campaigning feminists and woman-hating conservative pro-life (and let's not forget sexually dysfunctional) witches.

When one questions the thoughtless rhetoric of either camp, one is immediately shoved into the other one. It's ridiculous and shows an absolute incapacity for intelligent debate.

I am firmly on the fence and think both sides could do with improving their argument.

Everyone who is ok with the 24 week limit is therefore saying that women should NOT have a choice after 24 weeks. Be honest! You're only pro-choice up to a point prescribed by law.

Why is that so offensive?

Because although I agree with SDMT that it is not correct that different rules should apply to different types of babies, I still think that there are circumstances after 24 weeks where termination must be offered as an option.

I share her horror that babies who really don't have much wrong with them are terminated after 24 weeks, but I would not want to see that option withdrawn in cases where continuing the pregnancy is an unacceptable risk to the mother, or it is discovered that the foetus has a condition which means they will die at birth or live short life in pain, or other extreme circumstances. In those situations, denying the option of termination is inhumane.

I believe that a woman should have a choice up until a point where the foetus has reached a certain maturity, this point is reasonably set in the current laws IMO. The fact that I believe that a woman should be able to make that choice in line with the law does not mean that logically I must support termination up until term. That extrapolation in flawed.

carmen it is you who brought the diviseness to the thread TBH with your ideas about people who supporting women's choice to abortion, being so stupid that they couldn't see that their argument automatically meant they had to support abortion to term. It does not automatically mean that, the vast mojority of women do not support abortion to term in a norma pregnancy. You are well aware that most people find the ideas of term abortions repugnant, and by asserting that people must logically support it if they are to support abortion for choice at all, is bound to upset people, and then you are surprised when people react and accuse them of showing an incapacity for intelligent debate.

To make illogical arguments about what other people "must" think, and then say they are incapable of rational debate when they respond, is a particular conversation style on here that I find difficult to deal with.

Actually, I'm arguing it very logically.

The OP suggests that abortion is no-one's business except the woman in question. This assumes that the foetus has absolutely no rights of its own. And SGB has specified that she indeed means until the foetus is no longer inside the woman's body (birth).

This is an extreme feminist viewpoint.

A lot of people are bandwagoning and agreeing that 'Yes, it is a woman's choice'

I ask, "Really? You approve a woman's choice to abort an unborn baby at any stage, for any reason?"

SGB and a few others say "Yes"

Fair enough.

But those who are saying, "No" have a logical problem.

Because as soon as you set any limit, whether a time limit or a condition (only for medical reasons for example) and ask the law to enforce that limit, you are taking away a woman's choice and stating that it is no longer just her body.

I'm sorry if you find this difficult to deal with, but I would be interested in how you justify removing this choice. Saying "It's the law" doesn't cut it if you're talking about a woman's moral ownership of her body and the contents of her uterus.

Yes agreed- my issue with termination is only ever regarding giving people with disabilities equal rights - but not at the expense of women losing choice.

And I do believe there should be more access to counselling - if needed. It isn't always.

20 years ago an elderly friend told me about the termination she performed on herself (with a coat hanger) - that's just not an option - she's a reminder that the law cannot and should not force someone to carry a pregnancy they don't want.

My agreed was to sgb. Apologies on iPod

Actually I agree with you there carmen.

I have real problems with the view that termination because someone hasn't used contraception is somehow 'worse' than termination for disability. It's the same.

Either you give a woman rights over her body above those of a fetus or you don't. If you do give a woman a choice then you shouldn't starting passing judgment on choices when they are made.

A lot of this is very cultural. I remember a friend getting pregnant when I lived in japan and deciding to keep the baby. Many Japanese friends were horrified because she was single. I remember another friend telling her she should have an abortion as it was plain wrong to bring a child up without a father. I didn't agree with btw - but it made me think - it was such a different view to thr one prevailing here.

Telling said "I still think that there are circumstances after 24 weeks where termination must be offered as an option."

What circumstances would those be? What right do you have to tell her what particular circumstances allow her to make a choice?

Bearing in mind we're on the feminism topic here, I think it's really important to consider the question of a woman's ownership of and jurisdiction over her foetus.

X-post with Turnip there.

Turnip, I would not call myself pro-choice, precisely because this is so complicated. I will not ever support a law that allows a healthy woman to have a late term abortion of a healthy foetus.

However neither am I blanket anti-abortion.

I am just fed up with the smug 'pro-choice' sentiments. 'No-one else's business' and 'woman's body, woman's choice' when actually a significant amount of people proclaiming these things object strongly when women make choices they personally don't like.

I know we don't agree on the details. But I do agree with you that people do distinguish between 'good' and 'bad' reasons for termination. And in doing do they display prejudices (you might not agree with that bit).

Personally I think women should be trusted rather than policed. I can't see a sudden increase in post 24 week terminations if it became law.

Hmm CSD - I don't think it's quite that black and white. I think that abortion should be allowed up until the foetus is viable on its own (and I don't mean being coaxed into life by a NICU) which I guess is about 28 weeks/30 weeks or so?

Until that point, the foetus cannot survive without its mother. After that it's a bit more tricky. If I remove the foetus and it could survive perfectly well then aren't I committing infanticide if I kill it first?

Carmen, I take issue with your assertion that a woman (SGB in this case) who defends her rights to whether or not a medical procedure is carried out on her body is in some way an extreme feminist. It's a fairly standard feminist position that women should have the right to make her own decisions abuot what happens to her and her body.

To say otherwise is to infantalise women.

Also, in what way is the beoief that women should have a say over what happens in their own bodies "smug"? I don't follow that logic at all.

I need to sleep now but this is really interesting.

Turnip, I would love to agree with you on your last point and that it should be a private matter for women and their doctors.

My instinct is that I'd prefer a much more anarchic society in general with smaller groups being allowed to govern themselves. But then, my philosophy is that the vulnerable need to be protected against harm, whether it is against honour killings, circumcision or spanking and I will always support the rights of the vulnerable to be unmolested over parental 'rights'. And really in our society, the law is currently the best mechanism for protecting the vulnerable.

My personal viewpoint sees a foetus of a certain stage of development as a vulnerable, viable individual and therefore I feel that foetus deserves protection in law too.

There is no perfect solution. We will all disagree on foetal rights, but I don't think the topic should be swept under the carpet or lost in a polarised 'pro-choice v. pro-life' battle of words.