CEB wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 6:11 pm
This particular case seems awful, with a woman in a scary, highly stressful situation during an unprecedented time of stress for everyone in the world.
What sticks out to me is that she wasn’t getting support that she desperately needed, and wasn’t in a situation where there was a “good” option. And even the “lying” afterwards is the result of there being no safe way to disclose what happened.
The whole “would you feel different in X situation?” is barking up the wrong tree.
What cases like this illustrate is not the need to have clarity over when it’s OK to have an abortion, but the need for vulnerable women to have access to support - mental health support, shelter, counselling, financial assistance, escape from violent/coercive control etc.
If we actually accept that abortion at all stages should not be a criminal offence, then we enable women considering abortion to seek support, knowing that doing so will not put them on the radar as having committed a crime if the support turns out to not be enough.
Decriminalisation of abortion at all stages does not = support of late stage abortion. It just means that we recognise that archaic laws are not fit for purpose when they have this outcome.
Agree with most of that. Thanks for the sensible response. Seen first hand the absolute state of support currently for all women at all stages of childbirth on the nhs. Even post birth, we had two visits from midwives and they asked once “assume you’re alright”…which she wasn’t but wasn’t really given the opportunity to expand on that. The care was so bad, in fact, it’s all but made up our minds that a second one would be too traumatic based on what happened first time round.
Do you think decriminalisation would help make more women find suitable support and what are the actual chances of that support being there? In principle I think you are possibly right, although I’m still a little nervous about no laws about how, where and when you can abort a child, but I’m not sure decriminalisation would lead to the outcome you’ve set out.
I have no idea whether they’ll *find* suitable support, because that depends on whether the infrastructure is in place for it.
However, if the support *isnt* there, then there isn’t much basis for locking up vulnerable women in crisis, is there?
That is to say - my point isn’t reliant on there being enough support; my point is that women should be free to *seek out support they need*, without “if I seek help and don’t get it, they’ll know I’m pregnant and I won’t be able to get an abortion without authorities stepping in”
CEB wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 6:11 pm
This particular case seems awful, with a woman in a scary, highly stressful situation during an unprecedented time of stress for everyone in the world.
What sticks out to me is that she wasn’t getting support that she desperately needed, and wasn’t in a situation where there was a “good” option. And even the “lying” afterwards is the result of there being no safe way to disclose what happened.
The whole “would you feel different in X situation?” is barking up the wrong tree.
What cases like this illustrate is not the need to have clarity over when it’s OK to have an abortion, but the need for vulnerable women to have access to support - mental health support, shelter, counselling, financial assistance, escape from violent/coercive control etc.
If we actually accept that abortion at all stages should not be a criminal offence, then we enable women considering abortion to seek support, knowing that doing so will not put them on the radar as having committed a crime if the support turns out to not be enough.
Decriminalisation of abortion at all stages does not = support of late stage abortion. It just means that we recognise that archaic laws are not fit for purpose when they have this outcome.
Agree with most of that. Thanks for the sensible response. Seen first hand the absolute state of support currently for all women at all stages of childbirth on the nhs. Even post birth, we had two visits from midwives and they asked once “assume you’re alright”…which she wasn’t but wasn’t really given the opportunity to expand on that. The care was so bad, in fact, it’s all but made up our minds that a second one would be too traumatic based on what happened first time round.
Do you think decriminalisation would help make more women find suitable support and what are the actual chances of that support being there? In principle I think you are possibly right, although I’m still a little nervous about no laws about how, where and when you can abort a child, but I’m not sure decriminalisation would lead to the outcome you’ve set out.
I have no idea whether they’ll *find* suitable support, because that depends on whether the infrastructure is in place for it.
However, if the support *isnt* there, then there isn’t much basis for locking up vulnerable women in crisis, is there?
That is to say - my point isn’t reliant on there being enough support; my point is that women should be free to *seek out support they need*, without “if I seek help and don’t get it, they’ll know I’m pregnant and I won’t be able to get an abortion without authorities stepping in”
So you would you legalise late stage abortion with the criteria being "not enough help/support"?
I’d decriminalise, the “not enough support” criteria is irrelevant to the principle of decriminalisation.
The point is that potential criminal sanctions disincentivise seeking support, because of the fear that seeking it could put one in a worse position than not seeking it.
The only pertinent aspect should be this: a woman who feels she wants an abortion will get one. Society should make sure that it can be done safely.
CEB wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 9:55 pm
I’d decriminalise, the “not enough support” criteria is irrelevant to the principle of decriminalisation.
The point is that potential criminal sanctions disincentivise seeking support, because of the fear that seeking it could put one in a worse position than not seeking it.
The only pertinent aspect should be this: a woman who feels she wants an abortion will get one. Society should make sure that it can be done safely.
That’s it.
That's just crazy though isnt it?
What about women who feel they want a late stage abortion but don't get one because of the law and then go on to give birth and live a happy life with their child?
The implausible thing here, with respect, is the idea that there’s a hypothetical woman who is leaning towards abortion as she nears term on her pregnancy, but that what swings her against is the rules.
That’s simply not at all what happens if you read anything about these cases.
A spokesperson for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children called it a "horrifying case" that involved a "fully viable baby of eight months" and said the woman was fully aware she was breaking the law when she lied to get the drugs.
However, it criticised the availability of abortion drugs via post and added: "The real fault in this tragedy lies strongly with abortion providers who pushed for dangerous home abortions, and are now using this case to push for abortion up to birth."
CEB wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 5:57 pm
What’s quite telling is your casual comfort with the idea that I’d be applying rules.
My position is that it is not within my gift to “apply rules” to women’s bodies.
It’s not with casual comfort, that’s something you’ve decided.
I think the question you’re dodging is at what point do we apply rules to unborn babies bodies, because at the time of abortion it’s not just her body she’s making a decision on, is it?
I don’t see how it can be “dodging the question” when my position on your question is absolutely explicit.
But just to let you know; “it’s not just her body she’s making a decision about” is the language of pro-life discourse.
You’re still talking about what women “should” do, rather than recognising that a woman who feels she needs an abortion *will* get one.
You’re probably right that it be language if a pro-lifer, but outside of semantics I have strong beliefs in a woman’s right o abortion but also believe that there does need to be a cut off point. As I said earlier, this has brought up some confusion within me because it leads back to the age old question about when life starts. I don’t feel that I’m really out there with this opinion either (aside from on this thread, perhaps). I don’t have any medical or philosophical knowledge to help answer that though.
I think vulnerable women should be helped but I also think that having a legal limit deters some people.
CEB wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 10:05 pm
Which women?
The implausible thing here, with respect, is the idea that there’s a hypothetical woman who is leaning towards abortion as she nears term on her pregnancy, but that what swings her against is the rules.
That’s simply not at all what happens if you read anything about these cases.
Why is it implausible? And with respect, as a man you seem very sure on what women do or don’t do or feel, what’s driven that certainty?
It’s not with casual comfort, that’s something you’ve decided.
I think the question you’re dodging is at what point do we apply rules to unborn babies bodies, because at the time of abortion it’s not just her body she’s making a decision on, is it?
I don’t see how it can be “dodging the question” when my position on your question is absolutely explicit.
But just to let you know; “it’s not just her body she’s making a decision about” is the language of pro-life discourse.
You’re still talking about what women “should” do, rather than recognising that a woman who feels she needs an abortion *will* get one.
You’re probably right that it be language if a pro-lifer, but outside of semantics I have strong beliefs in a woman’s right o abortion but also believe that there does need to be a cut off point. As I said earlier, this has brought up some confusion within me because it leads back to the age old question about when life starts. I don’t feel that I’m really out there with this opinion either (aside from on this thread, perhaps). I don’t have any medical or philosophical knowledge to help answer that though.
I think vulnerable women should be helped but I also think that having a legal limit deters some people.
Why are you so concerned about whether you’re “out there”? Your point is as strong or as weak as it is regardless of any consensus you care to find on it.
You want a cut off point. That’s understood.
Now you need to understand that women who need an abortion do not give the first f*** about where you or I place a cut off point.
CEB wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 10:05 pm
Which women?
The implausible thing here, with respect, is the idea that there’s a hypothetical woman who is leaning towards abortion as she nears term on her pregnancy, but that what swings her against is the rules.
That’s simply not at all what happens if you read anything about these cases.
implausible? Really?
The law as it is means you cant get an abortion at that stage unless theres medical reasons.
CEB wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 10:08 pm
LSN, I’m gonna give you a minute to consider whether you want to delete that post before I reply to you for posting it.
CEB wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 10:05 pm
Which women?
The implausible thing here, with respect, is the idea that there’s a hypothetical woman who is leaning towards abortion as she nears term on her pregnancy, but that what swings her against is the rules.
That’s simply not at all what happens if you read anything about these cases.
Why is it implausible? And with respect, as a man you seem very sure on what women do or don’t do or feel, what’s driven that certainty?
It’s implausible because, inherently, women who are considering their options rationally would, by definition, not be waiting until late term to think about taking action to end a pregnancy.
As to your second question - by reading and listening to a lot of women on the subject of bodily autonomy, and specifically around abortion rights, and around what happens when women don’t have access to safe abortions. None of my points are reliant on what *all* women feel - women who don’t seek abortions don’t need my opinion on it - but I’ve read many accounts of women seeking abortions, and accounts of the women that supported them. And that’s why I have a pretty clear view on this
CEB wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 10:08 pm
LSN, I’m gonna give you a minute to consider whether you want to delete that post before I reply to you for posting it.
Oh thankyou oh wise one.
Twit.
Leave it up if you like, it just reflects poorly on you if you do. Maybe look into that organisation a bit
I don’t see how it can be “dodging the question” when my position on your question is absolutely explicit.
But just to let you know; “it’s not just her body she’s making a decision about” is the language of pro-life discourse.
You’re still talking about what women “should” do, rather than recognising that a woman who feels she needs an abortion *will* get one.
You’re probably right that it be language if a pro-lifer, but outside of semantics I have strong beliefs in a woman’s right o abortion but also believe that there does need to be a cut off point. As I said earlier, this has brought up some confusion within me because it leads back to the age old question about when life starts. I don’t feel that I’m really out there with this opinion either (aside from on this thread, perhaps). I don’t have any medical or philosophical knowledge to help answer that though.
I think vulnerable women should be helped but I also think that having a legal limit deters some people.
Why are you so concerned about whether you’re “out there”? Your point is as strong or as weak as it is regardless of any consensus you care to find on it.
You want a cut off point. That’s understood.
Now you need to understand that women who need an abortion do not give the first f*** about where you or I place a cut off point.
I’m not concerned, I guess I’m questioning myself and my views on this and would have assumed I was with the majority but it’s interesting that I might not be.
I don’t disagree with that statement but why does that mean we shouldn’t have laws or rules around when they should or shouldn’t have an abortion? By the same logic, if someone wants to kill someone they do not give a f*** what we think and will kill. But the fact that murder is illegal means that there’s a deterrent that will stop some people killing.
CEB wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 10:05 pm
Which women?
The implausible thing here, with respect, is the idea that there’s a hypothetical woman who is leaning towards abortion as she nears term on her pregnancy, but that what swings her against is the rules.
That’s simply not at all what happens if you read anything about these cases.
implausible? Really?
The law as it is means you cant get an abortion at that stage unless theres medical reasons.
Please link me to one credible account of a woman who seriously considered late stage abortion but decided against it because rules is rules.
You’re probably right that it be language if a pro-lifer, but outside of semantics I have strong beliefs in a woman’s right o abortion but also believe that there does need to be a cut off point. As I said earlier, this has brought up some confusion within me because it leads back to the age old question about when life starts. I don’t feel that I’m really out there with this opinion either (aside from on this thread, perhaps). I don’t have any medical or philosophical knowledge to help answer that though.
I think vulnerable women should be helped but I also think that having a legal limit deters some people.
Why are you so concerned about whether you’re “out there”? Your point is as strong or as weak as it is regardless of any consensus you care to find on it.
You want a cut off point. That’s understood.
Now you need to understand that women who need an abortion do not give the first f*** about where you or I place a cut off point.
I’m not concerned, I guess I’m questioning myself and my views on this and would have assumed I was with the majority but it’s interesting that I might not be.
I don’t disagree with that statement but why does that mean we shouldn’t have laws or rules around when they should or shouldn’t have an abortion? By the same logic, if someone wants to kill someone they do not give a f*** what we think and will kill. But the fact that murder is illegal means that there’s a deterrent that will stop some people killing.
I’ve made this point a few times, but you need to really consider it as the most pertinent:
Women who feel they need an abortion will not be deterred from getting one.
That’s the point.
So any cut off point you care to introduce will result in criminalisation of desperate women.
CEB wrote: ↑Tue Jun 13, 2023 10:08 pm
LSN, I’m gonna give you a minute to consider whether you want to delete that post before I reply to you for posting it.
Oh thankyou oh wise one.
Twit.
Leave it up if you like, it just reflects poorly on you if you do. Maybe look into that organisation a bit
I pasted that from a Sky News article, i guess it represents one side of the argument.
You’re probably right that it be language if a pro-lifer, but outside of semantics I have strong beliefs in a woman’s right o abortion but also believe that there does need to be a cut off point. As I said earlier, this has brought up some confusion within me because it leads back to the age old question about when life starts. I don’t feel that I’m really out there with this opinion either (aside from on this thread, perhaps). I don’t have any medical or philosophical knowledge to help answer that though.
I think vulnerable women should be helped but I also think that having a legal limit deters some people.
Why are you so concerned about whether you’re “out there”? Your point is as strong or as weak as it is regardless of any consensus you care to find on it.
You want a cut off point. That’s understood.
Now you need to understand that women who need an abortion do not give the first f*** about where you or I place a cut off point.
I’m not concerned, I guess I’m questioning myself and my views on this and would have assumed I was with the majority but it’s interesting that I might not be.
I don’t disagree with that statement but why does that mean we shouldn’t have laws or rules around when they should or shouldn’t have an abortion? By the same logic, if someone wants to kill someone they do not give a f*** what we think and will kill. But the fact that murder is illegal means that there’s a deterrent that will stop some people killing.
And we still have to have the law, cant just go and legalise murder.
Why are you so concerned about whether you’re “out there”? Your point is as strong or as weak as it is regardless of any consensus you care to find on it.
You want a cut off point. That’s understood.
Now you need to understand that women who need an abortion do not give the first f*** about where you or I place a cut off point.
I’m not concerned, I guess I’m questioning myself and my views on this and would have assumed I was with the majority but it’s interesting that I might not be.
I don’t disagree with that statement but why does that mean we shouldn’t have laws or rules around when they should or shouldn’t have an abortion? By the same logic, if someone wants to kill someone they do not give a f*** what we think and will kill. But the fact that murder is illegal means that there’s a deterrent that will stop some people killing.
I’ve made this point a few times, but you need to really consider it as the most pertinent:
Women who feel they need an abortion will not be deterred from getting one.
That’s the point.
So any cut off point you care to introduce will result in criminalisation of desperate women.
I understand your point but it’s very narrow and super zoomed in. Your logic falls apart quite quickly if you expand it out into any other societal law and order. And completely ignoring a viable life is at play.
Comparing abortion to murder is, again, using pro-life vocabulary.
The whole point here is that - as Mindsweep’s post supports - women seeking late term abortions are *always* experiencing crisis, and so comparisons to murder (and to the idea that the rule of law is an analogous deterrent in both cases) is misguided
implausible? Really?