Abortion at 34 weeks case...

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Why does it have to take a leap from I believe we shouldn’t be killing 34 week old foetuses (which the law agrees with btw) to women shouldn’t have the right to abortion?

No one is saying that on this thread, even if you think they are implying it, that’s in your head.

Women’s rights over abortions are hard won and fragile, as seen in the US. We don’t “have to take a leap”; it’s a matter of fact that if you use arguments of “viability” to delegitimise abortion at one stage of pregnancy, there are vocal, campaigning groups who will jump on that to attempt to further restrict access to abortion, based on when a foetus could feasibly be “viable”

Can you, for a moment, pause to answer as to whether the fact that you said you don’t know much about this is giving you pause? Because you started the thread claiming to not know much, but you’re not actually accepting very much that’s said by someone who has read and listened to a hall of a lot of women on this subject

Possibly because your first post was a bizarre rant and an attack pleading with me to engage my brain. Not a notorious tactic to push off from on a learning journey.

I’ve listened and engaged with your points. They just don’t make much sense to me in the main. I understand what you’re saying, and actually think it’s admirable you have such a passionate view from research and ‘listening to a lot of women’. And that doesn’t make you wrong, but the thing you seem to fail to grasp is that it also doesn’t make you right. But you speak with such absolute certainty on something you’ve never and will never experience.

[CEB]

My first post was a response to your demonstrably ignorant comment suggesting that a woman should know when to expect a crisis.

If I seem “certain” on this, it’s because I’m much more informed than you, and am able to respond to your initial reactions to a news story with regard to actual knowledge of the issues. Have you even read Mindsweep’s link?

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Good debating bro.

You’re getting wound up and silly now. Let’s pick up again tomorrow.

[CEB]

“Bro”

Nah, you’re ok.

[Still's Carenae]

A foetus can now survive from 24 weeks as the lungs are sufficiently developed.

When do we become conscious is the point of note, possibly before 24 weeks. Although I know some embryology, the development of the brain is paramount. You can see this when you look at a baby, the size of there head compared to the body. But at 34 weeks this would be considered as killing the child as premeditated.

[Adz]

As a society we've got to make a call on the balance between the rights of the woman, the rights of the child and the ethics behind it. I can see the arguments of both the no abortion and unlimited abortion, but I think 22 weeks is a reasonable compromise.

[CEB]

Phew, hear that ladies? Adz thinks 22 weeks is a good compromise. Make sure you have your crises before then!

It’s kind of interesting how the point is being missed.
It’s not a thought experiment.

If you’re going to adopt a reasonable, balanced tone and be like “yep, 22 weeks sounds about right”, then you need to actually expand on it with the practicalities, because, as I’ve said and as Mindsweep’s link (and the wealth of information accessible through her account) makes clear, your “reasonable” cut off does not actually mean “no abortion after 22 weeks”, but “no safe abortions after 22 weeks”. And, to be honest, you appear to have not at all considered the potential issues encompassed in the idea of a “crisis”

[Long slender neck]

You haven't said why an abortion is a legitimate way to solve a crisis.

[CEB]

You haven't said why an abortion is a legitimate way to solve a crisis.

That’s because my point is that nobody gets to decide what is “legitimate” for someone to do with their body.

You still haven’t actually laid out what you think “crisis” covers here.

[Rich Tea Wellin]

What does it cover, all knowing one?

[CEB]

The fact that you’re displaying contempt for the fact that I’m informed on this is quite pathetic. If you’d like to continue the conversation, that’s not how to get a response. You claimed you don’t know much about the subject, that’s on you. Ask again if you want a proper answer.

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Is continuing the conversation telling people to engage their brain or
Phew, hear that ladies? Adz thinks 22 weeks is a good compromise. Make sure you have your crises before then!

The reality is you dont want to continue a conversation, you want people to tell you that you are right.

You've talked to some women about it though, so i'm sure you'll go away thinking you've got this spot on.

[CEB]

I don’t need to be “told I’m right” - I don’t know if you’ve noticed but affirmation of agreement is not actually something I seek out.

You haven’t actually made any sort of case for anything at all, you’ve just kind of waded in to an area you know is controversial, but without even getting the terms correct.

I’m very sorry if my deployment of sarcasm has upset you - there’s plenty more where that came from - but it’s up to you; I can either explain to you what I mean by “crisis” and how I think my position works in practice, or you can maintain your current understanding of the situation.

It does seem rather bizarre to me that after starting a thread about abortion, you seem to be like “well… I know people have strong views on this but I didn’t expect sarcasm or to be told to engage my brain!!!”

[Rich Tea Wellin]

Unfortunately I was under the bizarre illusion that we could have a conversation without an attack on cognitive ability but there you go.

You’re right, you don’t want someone to tell you that you’re right, you know you are and just want acceptance of that. It’s a great quality to have to feel that confident.

I’ve opened myself up to vulnerability and admitted I don’t understand the ins and outs. You’ve come and told everyone what the truth is. Being upset isn’t the issue here. You seem to want to change minds, or at least educate people but do so in a way that isn’t engaging or educational. There’s also been no substance to any of your claims from what I can gather aside from “I’ve read a lot, I’ve spoken to women, and there’s a Twitter thread by someone if you don’t believe me”. I’m not expecting you to credit all your sources but I am challenging your self appointed speaker of truth on the subject. You can’t expect to try to educate whilst also dismissing any other viewpoint that doesn’t align with yours.

I already asked you to explain your definition of a crisis and you dodged it.

[CEB]

First up: do me a favour. “Engage your brain” isn’t “attacking your cognitive abilities”. It’s literally suggesting you are not using your ability. It’s genuinely hilarious that you’re so outraged by something that’s so innocuous.

Second; I don’t “know I’m right” - I know I have a consistent, coherent position on this subject that’s based on understanding the arguments from various positions, which is why I recognise inconsistencies in yours.

Thirdly: you’re not “opening yourself up to vulnerability” by disclosing lack of knowledge on a subject if, in practice, your lack of knowledge is used as a weapon by calling someone more informed “o wise one” - your disclosure of not being fully informed would be admirable if it went with a bit more listening.

As for the “crises”. Great, you’ve asked again without the snark - I’ll reply with exactly what I’m referring to, and how it works. Then, you can tell me what you think is unethical about my position. Deal?

[CEB]

Re: crises. Here’s what I mean, and what I’m actually advocating for.

The crucial principle here is decriminalisation. Not “approval”, not “believing an abortion at 12 weeks is the same as at 38 weeks”, but whether it’s a good idea for women seeking late term abortion (or any abortion without being approved by doctors) to potentially face criminal sanctions for doing so.
My view is for decriminalisation, and here is why.

The sort of crises I’m describing - the sort that made me invite OTF to engage his brain when he asked, apparently genuinely, why women didn’t have their crisis earlier - are these (not an exhaustive list, but to paint a plausible picture).
For clarity, and to preempt LSN’s likely follow up - these are not intended to be “valid reasons to abort a pregnancy”, but are “situations that arise that can plausibly cause desperation in a woman who doesn’t have a support network around her”

Examples are:
*mental health breakdown/depressive episodes
*being in/attempting to escape a violent or coercive relationship where a partner has impacted on a woman’s freedom
*sudden breakdown of relationship late on in pregnancy
*sudden loss of important people in her support network
*sudden change in life circumstances/work/physical health

Now, the point re: decriminalisation isn’t

“The above are all reasons why abortion should be totes cool at whatever stage”

It’s that women who find themselves in isolated, vulnerable conditions need to not be disincentivised from seeking appropriate support.

What this means is:
Take a hypothetical woman who has experiencing severe depression and anxiety, as well as concerns about future ability to parent. She has a flair up late on in the pregnancy.

Decriminalisation here does not mean “she should pop to the gp and get it sorted, no problem”: it means that she should be able to approach a professional about her circumstances
*in the knowledge that prison is not one of the outcomes if other outcomes don’t work out*

What this means for the woman in crisis is that she doesn’t need to second guess the support she gets - she can go in and say “I want to end this pregnancy”, knowing that while a process will then kick in that (hopefully) supports her through the crisis and where the best outcome is reconciliation with a pregnancy that she (in most cases) will have wanted until the crisis kicked in, that if she is still driven to end the pregnancy, she can do so safely - or, at the very least, know that she can seek medical help after getting an unsafe abortion.

The alternative - what criminalisation does, as shown by the case we’re discussing - is that a woman in crisis, minded to abort her pregnancy, will circumvent seeking support, because she knows that to seek support means that if that support isn’t enough to reconcile her with the pregnancy/potential of having the child, she will face prison.

That’s why it’s necessary to take a “zoomed in” look: any woman expressing a need for an abortion late on in pregnancy is likely to have a very complex, specific set of circumstances - those circumstances are highly unlikely to be at all affected by abstract discussions of “I think 22 weeks should be the cut off”

So again, please read the women who write about supporting women through abortion & pregnancy, and recognise that “decriminalisation” does not = “unambiguous condoning of abortion at any stage”

[Long slender neck]

You haven't said why an abortion is a legitimate way to solve a crisis.

That’s because my point is that nobody gets to decide what is “legitimate” for someone to do with their body.

You still haven’t actually laid out what you think “crisis” covers here.

Doesnt that contradict what you believe about the whole trans thing though?
You'd be against surgery to address gender identity distress.

I'd say at 34 weeks its their baby *in* their body. Perhaps this is where we disagree.

[CEB]

I’m not against surgery to address distress with gender identity.

[Stowaway]

Who’d have predicted that this thread would have turned out like this, eh?

[Long slender neck]

I’m not against surgery to address distress with gender identity.

[Long slender neck]

What this means for the woman in crisis is that she doesn’t need to second guess the support she gets - she can go in and say “I want to end this pregnancy”, knowing that while a process will then kick in that (hopefully) supports her through the crisis and where the best outcome is reconciliation with a pregnancy that she (in most cases) will have wanted until the crisis kicked in, that if she is still driven to end the pregnancy, she can do so safely - or, at the very least, know that she can seek medical help after getting an unsafe abortion

.

So, you want to legalise abortions at any time of pregnancy.

[CEB]

“ I'd say at 34 weeks it’s their baby *in* their body. Perhaps this is where we disagree.”

I don’t think that’s where we disagree - I don’t think it’s factually incorrect for you to see a foetus near full term as a baby in her body. Where we disagree is on what weight we place on that fact.
I think that that fact is a good reason that late term abortions shouldn’t be routine, should be very rare, to the point of being absolutely last resort.
I also think that women who are pregnant are very unlikely to get to that stage by just not addressing whether they want a baby until then.
Which is why it’s important to look at what actually happens in such cases. Again, Mindsweep’s post links to someone very knowledgeable on this, and it’s worth reading (and reading the material she links to)

[CEB]

What this means for the woman in crisis is that she doesn’t need to second guess the support she gets - she can go in and say “I want to end this pregnancy”, knowing that while a process will then kick in that (hopefully) supports her through the crisis and where the best outcome is reconciliation with a pregnancy that she (in most cases) will have wanted until the crisis kicked in, that if she is still driven to end the pregnancy, she can do so safely - or, at the very least, know that she can seek medical help after getting an unsafe abortion

.

So, you want to legalise abortions at any time of pregnancy.

I don’t think “potential criminal sanctions” should be a thing women should fear when deciding to have an abortion. You can describe it in those terms if you like, I suppose. I won’t split hairs about the distinction between decriminalisation and legalisation, so yeah, ok.

[CEB]

Well worth a read: https://www.durham.ac.uk/departments/ac ... minal-law/

[tuffers#1]

Re: crises. Here’s what I mean, and what I’m actually advocating for.

The crucial principle here is decriminalisation. Not “approval”, not “believing an abortion at 12 weeks is the same as at 38 weeks”, but whether it’s a good idea for women seeking late term abortion (or any abortion without being approved by doctors) to potentially face criminal sanctions for doing so.
My view is for decriminalisation, and here is why.

The sort of crises I’m describing - the sort that made me invite OTF to engage his brain when he asked, apparently genuinely, why women didn’t have their crisis earlier - are these (not an exhaustive list, but to paint a plausible picture).
For clarity, and to preempt LSN’s likely follow up - these are not intended to be “valid reasons to abort a pregnancy”, but are “situations that arise that can plausibly cause desperation in a woman who doesn’t have a support network around her”

Examples are:
*mental health breakdown/depressive episodes
*being in/attempting to escape a violent or coercive relationship where a partner has impacted on a woman’s freedom
*sudden breakdown of relationship late on in pregnancy
*sudden loss of important people in her support network
*sudden change in life circumstances/work/physical health

Now, the point re: decriminalisation isn’t

“The above are all reasons why abortion should be totes cool at whatever stage”

It’s that women who find themselves in isolated, vulnerable conditions need to not be disincentivised from seeking appropriate support.

What this means is:
Take a hypothetical woman who has experiencing severe depression and anxiety, as well as concerns about future ability to parent. She has a flair up late on in the pregnancy.

Decriminalisation here does not mean “she should pop to the gp and get it sorted, no problem”: it means that she should be able to approach a professional about her circumstances
*in the knowledge that prison is not one of the outcomes if other outcomes don’t work out*

What this means for the woman in crisis is that she doesn’t need to second guess the support she gets - she can go in and say “I want to end this pregnancy”, knowing that while a process will then kick in that (hopefully) supports her through the crisis and where the best outcome is reconciliation with a pregnancy that she (in most cases) will have wanted until the crisis kicked in, that if she is still driven to end the pregnancy, she can do so safely - or, at the very least, know that she can seek medical help after getting an unsafe abortion.

The alternative - what criminalisation does, as shown by the case we’re discussing - is that a woman in crisis, minded to abort her pregnancy, will circumvent seeking support, because she knows that to seek support means that if that support isn’t enough to reconcile her with the pregnancy/potential of having the child, she will face prison.

That’s why it’s necessary to take a “zoomed in” look: any woman expressing a need for an abortion late on in pregnancy is likely to have a very complex, specific set of circumstances - those circumstances are highly unlikely to be at all affected by abstract discussions of “I think 22 weeks should be the cut off”

So again, please read the women who write about supporting women through abortion & pregnancy, and recognise that “decriminalisation” does not = “unambiguous condoning of abortion at any stage”

Surely the biggest excuse is the physiological & Chemical changes going on in 1 body supporting 2, & is the only " excuse " that needs to be considered in that each can kill one or both by the slighest imbalance in whatever is classed as a normal healthy pregnancy .

Suprised you missed it .