Can we talk about abortion?

[OneMore]

Let me set out my background and reasons as to why my opinion should be more respected than the next man's:

.

Now that's out of the way, it's something that's been referred to recently without being overtly discussed here. There are people involved in the 'public' discussion who'd probably be better off not allowed out of the house, much less put in a position to sway the opinion of the vulnerable, but I try to not let people like that cloud my judgement.

This is a difficult topic to talk about, in part because the language used on each side of the debate can be so charged. 'Baby' or 'unborn child' versus 'foetus', 'mother' versus 'woman', 'terminated' or 'aborted' versus 'killed'. It's hard to have a discussion in these terms unless you deliberately use the language preferred by those on the opposite side of the debate. I wonder what effect it would have on the shape of the public debate if pro-lifers could only refer to the foetus, and pro-choicers could only refer to the unborn child (I think I'll do this for the rest of this post). I digress.

Cards on the table, I have some serious lefty/socialist/down with the system views on the world. I read the Guardian. I recently have tended to not vote, as the notion of anyone on the ballot representing me hasn't sat well.

I am a parent. I have no one in my immediate circle that has terminated a pregnancy, that I know of.

I had a conservative evangelical upbringing, but would no longer refer to myself in those terms. I support equal marriage.

As a lefty, nearly everything I read says I should be supporting the pro-choice movement. Supporting the right of women to determine their own reproductive futures without legislators interfering. Trust women. I do trust women. Well, a lot of women. I'm not certain I implicitly trust them any more than I do men, but I'm a strong advocate for equality.

This is another thing that hinders this debate. The inherent asymmetry between men and women on the topic of reproduction. As a man my opinion carries less weight. Grand. It just makes my involvement in the conversation hard. And i want to be allowed an opinion here.

So everything says be pro-choice. But I can't. I hate the fact that in the public debate on this support for the foetus is carried by and large by the right wing dinosaurs who pray over gay people to try and make them straight. These people do not represent me.

But I hate the thought that a vulnerable ball of cells could just be flushed away on a whim. Abortion is nearly always done, thoughtfully, carefully and in excruciating emotional pain.

But I think someone advocating for the foetus is a good thing.

I haven't touched on the specifics here, I haven't referred to rape, incest or fatal foetal abnormality. And truthfully I don't entirely know what I think in those cases. I just know that to me the idea that someone has second thoughts about having a child and terminates a pregnancy even over halfway through feels wrong.

Partly I guess too, I want to say that not everyone who has reservations about falling into line with the mainland regarding abortion is some sort of dinosaur or religious nutjob.

Okay, it's late and I'm probably incoherent enough as is.

[BaggyTrousers]

Second post, second man. Funny old world. Before I start, I hate Bernie Smyth and her ilk. That is my first standpoint but I believe there may well be reasonable people who for want of a better expression are "pro-life". I believe them to be misguided.

Yin, we would share a fair few things in terms of political views but my view on abortion is not the same as yours. I come from the point that nobody has the right to insist that any woman has a child she does not wish to have.

There you go, like you I avoid throwing in any suggestion of special cases.

For me it's very simple, I hope I am not open to correction, if so, so be it, but my understanding is that under UK abortion law, the cut off period of 24 weeks is such that if delivered, by Cesarean section or prematurely by the natural route, at that point, without any other trauma present, the potential child would not be self-sustainable though I understand a week or two before that there have been a tiny number of survivors.

That bit for me confirms the upper limit of 24 weeks in "normal circumstances" as being correct, though my understanding is that the vast majority of abortions will have taken place long before 24 weeks.

That is it for me, if it is not capable of independent life, it is not yet a "person" ( very difficult to find an appropriate word).

That time limit apart I find myself incapable of insisting that my views should be brought to bear on any woman making, what in most cases will be a very difficult decision.

I support any woman's right to decide if she wishes to have a baby and to anyone stupid enough to suggest, "she should have kept her legs together" or any similar misogynistic bullshit, can lick my sweaty balls.

[OneMore]

The notion that the foetus is not yet a person, until it is capable of independent life is compelling. It is not without its difficulties, but it is thought provoking.

I think the pro-choice argument probably hinges on the rejection of a foetus under 24 weeks as an independent being. And 24 weeks does seem a bit arbitrary, but I understand they have to draw the line somewhere.

As medicine advances, we have to expect the chances of a foetus surviving prior to 24 weeks will probably rise. Would you support moving the cut-off back in line with this?

[BaggyTrousers]

The notion that the foetus is not yet a person, until it is capable of independent life is compelling. It is not without its difficulties, but it is thought provoking.

I think the pro-choice argument probably hinges on the rejection of a foetus under 24 weeks as an independent being. And 24 weeks does seem a bit arbitrary, but I understand they have to draw the line somewhere.

As medicine advances, we have to expect the chances of a foetus surviving prior to 24 weeks will probably rise. Would you support moving the cut-off back in line with this?

Yes absolutely I would, in the little I have looked at it, there appears to be a greater ability for babies at that stage to survive independently than perhaps 20 or 30 years ago. My entire argument being about the prospective child's ability to survive independently, it would be only reasonable that I would accept evidence that this could be at a lower age. I understand that it is highly unlikely to be something that will move significantly earlier, as the lungs and organs development are the key to it's independence.

I may be wrong on many counts about the science of it, that is just my uneducated understanding, and I also understand that abortions close to the 24 week limit are relatively rare, there are possible reasons I suppose that a woman could reach a decision that late or perhaps changed personal circumstances could make the decision compelling but I imagine the vast majority would be much earlier.

My understanding is that the law in GB is based in the concept of capability for independent life and that is absolutely correct in my view. That apart, leave the decision to the woman, it's entirely her business, not some horrible bleached harridan nor bible bashing troglodytes, the spokespeople for whom are rarely anything but older white males of a certain persuasion.

[BaggyTrousers]

The notion that the foetus is not yet a person, until it is capable of independent life is compelling. It is not without its difficulties, but it is thought provoking.

I think the pro-choice argument probably hinges on the rejection of a foetus under 24 weeks as an independent being. And 24 weeks does seem a bit arbitrary, but I understand they have to draw the line somewhere.

As medicine advances, we have to expect the chances of a foetus surviving prior to 24 weeks will probably rise. Would you support moving the cut-off back in line with this?

Yes absolutely I would, in the little I have looked at it, there appears to be a greater ability for babies at that stage to survive independently than perhaps 20 or 30 years ago. My entire argument being about the prospective child's ability to survive independently, it would be only reasonable that I would accept evidence that this could be at a lower age. I understand that it is highly unlikely to be something that will move significantly earlier, as the lungs and organs development are the key to it's independence.

I may be wrong on many counts about the science of it, that is just my uneducated understanding, and I also understand that abortions close to the 24 week limit are relatively rare, there are possible reasons I suppose that a woman could reach a decision that late or perhaps changed personal circumstances could make the decision compelling but I imagine the vast majority would be much earlier.

My understanding is that the law in GB is based in the concept of capability for independent life and that is absolutely correct in my view. That apart, leave the decision to the woman, it's entirely her business, not some horrible bleached harridan nor bible bashing troglodytes, the spokespeople for whom are rarely anything but older white males of a certain persuasion.

[big mervyn]

I'm 100% pro choice but I think 24 weeks is now too long in "normal circumstances". I'd prefer 18-20 - exceptions in certain instances such as fatal foetal abnormality.

[BaggyTrousers]

Each to their own Merv, but based on your thoughts I did a quick search, the youngest surviving babies born were at 22 weeks and 5 days and survival around the 23 week mark seems comparatively rare whilst survival after 24/25 weeks is also precarious and obviously improves the later a premature birth occurs.

18/20 seems very early. Just saying.

[rorybestsbigbaldnoggin]

Firstly, that's an excellent opening post on the subject One More.

Eighth post, fourth man! I personally don't think I'm too far from OneMore's view.


I don't know anyone, to the best of my knowledge, who has had an abortion. If any close female family or friends were to become pregnant, consider abortion and actively seek my opinion on it, I can't envision any scenario - outside of the "particular" cases which have become the centre of a lot of legislative attention here* - where I could say I would recommend, or give any explicit or implicit approval of, any abortion.

However, it's not my call. Bold face will be an inadequate re-enforcement of this: It is only ever the call of the woman involved, and any other people she chooses to seek counsel from. Any woman's body is her own, just as any man's is. That seems basic and fundamental to me. Now obviously that leads to questions about "foetal personhood" or the "viability threshold" whereby the "foetus"/"unborn baby" gains personhood and associated rights, which have been the focus of much abortion law in the US and UK over the past half-century, and which are a major (probably the major) sticking-point of the logic of the pro-choice lobby.

So fundamentally, I am "privately" anti-abortion and "publically" pro-choice.

That make sense?




*Rape, incest, FFA etc.

[Jackie Brown]

The prochoicers are always going on about an embryo or foetus being a baby. It's very emotive language and not helpful. Where does it end? Is having a banker an abortion? What about a woman's period? Both contain the potential for a gurning, screaming, not sleeping bundle of joy.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

[rocky]

A couple of things. Some research:

In 2006, one-third of babies born in England between 22 and 26 weeks survived to the time of hospital discharge. This ranged from 2% of babies born at 22 weeks, increasing to 77% of babies born at 26 weeks.
Comparing this with similar data from 1995 (which required restricting the sample to the babies born between 22 and 25 weeks and admitted to ICU), there was an overall increase in survival-to-discharge rates from 40% in 1995 to 53% in 2006.
However, there was no improvement in the incidence of severe illness and handicap in these babies, which remains very common.

Probably, there has been some further improvement since then and it does seem as though there is a case to lower the limit to 22 weeks - with modern scanning, this should not make a difference in the ability to diagnose FFA, for example.

Bill Clinton (who got a lot of things wrong) surely got it right when he said that abortion should be rare, safe, and legal.
It does seem to me that, with modern methods of contraception along with the easy availability of the "morning after" pill (which I do not consider to be abortion and can work up to 72 hours after conception), the incidence of unexpected/unwanted pregnancy should be uncommon. I think the incidence has fallen quite a lot over the last few decades but it could be even less and I believe sex education at home and in schools still leaves a lot to be desired.
I am personally uncomfortable with the 1967 law as it stands in the rest of the UK because I think it makes it so easy to get an abortion that it stops people from taking care not to get pregnant in the first instance. This is clearly a male view and women may well say it's rubbish.
I think that, in cases of rape, incest (still plentiful) and FFA, there should be no question other than for a woman to decide if she wants to terminate the pregnancy or not and that should be the end of it.
In other cases, it should still be the woman's decision but the limit should probably be 22 weeks.
Morning after pills should be as easily available as condoms and pregnancy advice for women should be freely and easily available without any hint of harassment or the presence of Mrs Smith's friends, so that terminations can be early, private, and as easy as possible for women.
If all of this fails and surgical abortion is necessary, it should still be the decision of the woman but only after she has had proper counselling and is aware of all the facts.
Finally, there should be far faster and easier access to adoption if a woman decides to have the baby but then wants to give it up (probably an uncommon choice nowadays but still an important thing to have available).

All these opinions are my own.

[big mervyn]

The prochoicers are always going on about an embryo or foetus being a baby. It's very emotive language and not helpful. Where does it end? Is having a banker an abortion? What about a woman's period? Both contain the potential for a gurning, screaming, not sleeping bundle of joy.

Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk

Possibly reasonably grounds for a retrospective one - up to about 3000 weeks?

I would revise my limit to 20-22 weeks given the medical evidence provided. Adoption is a tricky one these days given the rights adopted children now have regarding parental id.

[Wee Woman]

Just to add a female voice - one that is also a mother's voice.

I am 100% pro-choice but like Merv I think the 24 week limit is a little too long in the face of modern advancements (though I accept abortions at that point are very, very rare). The limit should come down to 22 weeks IMO.

Bernie Smyth is an utter cretinous individual, as are her supporters. Who the feck are they to judge what another woman does (or does not) do with her body?? I want to throw things at the TV every time yer woman is on it, she makes me so mad.

I know of some women who have had terminations, and in both cases they went on to have another baby within 12 months - I think that can tell you a lot about how conflicted they were by their actions. Not many would take a decision to end a pregnancy lightly IMO.

Would I do it? No would be the answer to that but like my Mum said to me, if ever faced with taking a decision on whether to end a pregnancy she would support me 100% and I would do likewise with my own daughter. It's easy for these pro-life nutjobs to say 'just have the baby and have it adopted' but that's another whole set of upheavals and issues too.

I'm really of the opinion that if life can't be independently sustained up to a certain point of pregnancy then that's what the limit should be but it's a very personal decision and no one should be judged for their actions when you don't know all the circumstances.

[OneMore]

The contention that what a woman does with her body is no one else's business is popular in these discussions. And largely I agree. In general terms I support the right of people to have freedom, where it doesn't impinge upon the quality of life of others. You should be free to play the guitar with the amp turned up to 11, at 3am - as long as you don't have objecting neighbours who are being kept awake. If you do, I'd expect you to be restricted in that from.

I think this comes back to whether you consider a young foetus (less than 24/22 weeks, say) to be a person or not. If somone feels that it is a person, even this young, then by and large you'll fall into the 'pro-life' camp. I don't think such a rationale is enough to make you a 'nutjob'. I find this sort of language unhelpful.

On the whole, pro-lifers wouldn't consider themselves 'anti-choice' any more than the rest of us consider ourselves 'anti-freedom' by expecting the budding rock-star to tone down the late night guitar.

The argument the pro-lifer makes (in general, or at least me) is that the foetus could be a person who is the most vulnerable party in the story and who will speak for the voiceless here? (sorry this is certainly treading the emotive language border I wanted to avoid, but I hope it doesn't enrage.)

As I say, the disagreement is on the person-ness of the foetus. The rest of the argument (about restricting women's choice, who is allowed an opinion, whether it's killing/murder...) seems to me just extensions from there.

Again I hate that the public discussion is largely representing people like me as 'pro-life nutjobs', but hopefully, I think, other varieties of pro-lifer exist.

[OneMore]

Who the feck are they to judge what another woman does (or does not) do with her body??

I totally agree that judgement of others - even with an awareness of the situation - is wrong.

[big mervyn]

The ones that enjoy extensive media exposure in Norn Irn are, by and large, "nutjobs".