Roe v Wade

1. If wombs had windows....
2. It's worth watching what actually happens in an abortion.
3. Back street abortion was a terrible evil and some women died because of it. But every unborn child dies in an abortion.
4. If we are truly standing up for female rights, is it not worth considering the rights of female unborn babies?
5. I'm never going to judge a woman who has had an abortion because I have never stood in her shoes. However, although my thoughts will not be popular, I hope I'm allowed to say I disagree with the action.

Reading around, one argument being used is that constitutionally the US Supreme Court should never have legislated on the subject and that the current decision, if applied, is in effect handing back the decision about making abortion legal/illegal to electors via their representatives at State level.

In short, that if the majority of voters within a state want abortion to be legalised, they can vote for it, and the converse (not sure that's the word but hope you get my meaning) also. It has been pointed out that most if not all Democrat states will continue to allow abortion and that most Republican states won't.

icanhandthemback How hard for you but you know you made the right decision.

I’m so sorry icanhandthemback. That was a sad and traumatic experience for you. I hope you realise that the harsh views expressed yesterday were based on ignorance and don’t take them to heart. You know that the decision you made was right.?

DaisyAnne

foxie48

An opinion is just that, someone's view, it doesn't have to be backed up with facts. Sadly lots of people have extremely offensive opinions on all sorts of subjects but I've never found that getting angry or attacking them has ever changed their opinion, it just gives them air time, but that's just my opinion!

foxie48 We are talking about the change in law not what you like for tea; a change in whether I own my body or the state does.

Of course, someone can have an opinion. We all do or we wouldn't be bothering to discuss this on here. However, I wonder if you realise just how rude/arrogant it can seem if someone is suggesting an unsubstantiated opinion is equal to a fact. You can offer an unverified opinion in a way which won't get others' backs up you know.

DaisyAnne However, I wonder if you realise just how rude/arrogant it can seem if someone is suggesting an unsubstantiated opinion is equal to a fact.
I have said nothing of the sort, please read what I have written. However, it is "my opinion" that provided it is within the law, people are entitled to express opinions even if I and the rest of humanity disagree with them. If they are expressing an opinion it does not have to be backed up with facts. We used to be proud of having free speech, all sorts of people get up in Hyde Park Corner on their soap boxes and as long as they speak within the law, they can express as much drivel as they wish. It is up to the listener to have the intelligence and discernment to decide what to accept and what to reject. By all means "call people out" if you disagree with their opinions but so many of these threads just turn into a slanging match which then become increasingly polarised. Personally, I think this is a pity (my opinion). You have, in your post, called me rude and offensive and then patronised me, "You can offer an unverified opinion in a way which won't get others' backs up you know." I think this represents a little of what I am saying in this post.

Moving on. I looked at the Roe vs Wade verdict (and there's an interesting article in today's Guardian) because the aspect of the constitution central to the case was concerned with "liberty" there is a danger that the right of a woman
to terminate a pregnancy might just be the tip of the iceberg.

How long does it usually take to decide on an abortion or not, I have no idea personally. The change in law allows abortion up to six weeks, not long for some to confirm pregnancy never mind arrange termination. Retrograde step for USA.

I’ve always thought it so biologically unfair that a man can, if he chooses, impregnate as many (willing) women as he wants and can then just head off into the sunset without a backward glance. A women who has an unwanted/unplanned child will inevitably have her life changed forever in some way, whatever happens to that child. I’m also aware of course that those unplanned babies can be an absolute joy. But not always. IMO opinion it should always be a woman's right to have an abortion if she doesn’t want to continue with a pregnancy.

Another anti-female retrograde step.

Just heard that state of Oklahoma has banned abortion after 6 weeks! Am assuming that this doesn’t include failed pregnancies such a blighted ovum, where I don’t think the removal procedure is categorised as ‘abortion’ or indeed spontaneous ‘abortion’?
In any event shouldn’t the criterion be if the foetus is incapable of independent living even if medically supported…?

TheodoraP

volver at 20 weeks you ate able to abort a baby

At 20 weeks a baby NOT a bunch of cells is FULLY formed

My baby was 20 weeks when we aborted for medical reasons. My baby was not fully formed although the medical reasons would not have precluded that. Her eyes would not have opened, her ears were not fully formed, her skin was translucent, etc. There was no way, even if she had been medically sound, that she would have survived. We know her exact date of conception because she was ICSI. I still have her photo because she was a real baby to me but I know she couldn't survive outside my body. I suspect any babies in a video claiming to be 20 weeks are older because the dates weren't correct.
As somebody who would prefer not to have an abortion, I woke up every morning with the first thought in my head that I murdered my baby. I have learned to live with that and I don't want anybody to go through that process so I want every woman who has to go through such a late procedure to be aware of the feelings they might feel (especially as I had milk pouring out of me for a week afterwards) but no woman who has got so far in a pregnancy would go through an abortion lightly. Earlier abortions are no picnic either. Talking about them being murderers, spouting they are fully formed when they aren't is just unkind.

TheodoraP do you consider the removal of a fallopian tube that contains a pregnancy selfish murder? How about the abused child - do you consider the termination of the result of that abuse to be selfish murder? I do not know how, as a woman, you can blithely say that all abortion is selfish murder!

How many anti abortionists have adopted an otherwise unwanted child?

This is a well known phylosophical argument fron Judith Jarvis Thomson about right to life.

I propose, then, that we grant that the fetus is a person from the moment of conception. How does the argument go from here? Something like this, I take it. Every person has a right to life. So the fetus has a right to life. No doubt the mother has a right to decide what shall happen in and to her body; everyone would grant that. But surely a person's right to life is stronger and more stringent than the mother's right to decide what happens in and to her body, and so outweighs it. So the fetus may not be killed; an abortion may not be performed.

It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you--we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist is now plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if the director of the hospital says. "Tough luck. I agree. but now you've got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.

This is from a much longer piece looking at most if not all of the arguments put forward. It was written in 1975 and has stood the test of time. You still have to make your own mind up after reading it however ; that's philosophy

spot.colorado.edu/~heathwoo/Phil160,Fall02/thomson.htm

Whitewavemark2

Been reading around the subject.

It seems that regardless of the law, the level of abortion remains pretty much at the same level.

What changes is that if abortion is made illegal, the level of deaths of women having an abortion shoots up.

I was thinking of looking up the statistics on levels of abortion before and after 1969, and numbers of maternal deaths from abortions before and after that date, but WW2 has done it for me.

A comparison of the amount of maternal cruelty to children conceived by rape or incest and carried to term, versus to other children, graphed against the availability of abortion to those mothers, would also be an interesting statistic.

Baggs All "solutions" have a catch for somebody!

Elegran that was one of Germaine Greer's solutions to unwanted children. She suggested that all men should deposit sperm with a sperm bank and then have a vasectomy. They would then be able to use their sperm when they wanted a child. I don't think many men liked the idea!

Whitewavemark2

Been reading around the subject.

It seems that regardless of the law, the level of abortion remains pretty much at the same level.

What changes is that if abortion is made illegal, the level of deaths of women having an abortion shoots up.

Isn't that what our government would call a new "business model" WWM?

foxie48

An opinion is just that, someone's view, it doesn't have to be backed up with facts. Sadly lots of people have extremely offensive opinions on all sorts of subjects but I've never found that getting angry or attacking them has ever changed their opinion, it just gives them air time, but that's just my opinion!

foxie48 We are talking about the change in law not what you like for tea; a change in whether I own my body or the state does.

Of course, someone can have an opinion. We all do or we wouldn't be bothering to discuss this on here. However, I wonder if you realise just how rude/arrogant it can seem if someone is suggesting an unsubstantiated opinion is equal to a fact. You can offer an unverified opinion in a way which won't get others' backs up you know.

Been reading around the subject.

It seems that regardless of the law, the level of abortion remains pretty much at the same level.

What changes is that if abortion is made illegal, the level of deaths of women having an abortion shoots up.

The trouble with that idea, elegran, is that some men would abuse it by refusing to 'let' their partner/wife have a child/children even though the wife's/partner's desire for children had been made clear before the marriage/partnership had been entered into.

Dickens

... as pointed out indirectly by a journalist (male)...

... when women can legislate what men can and can't do with their reproduction system, then I might listen to what they think we should be allowed to do with ours...

Here is a suggestion for a law for men (not a serious one, to be honest, but it would be comparable to removing from women all control of their reproduction)

How about making it obligatory for all males to have a reversible operation at puberty, to "tie their tubes" to hold in the sperm? Then there would only be babies when they had made a conscious decision to "untie the knot" and allow sperm to meet ova - with permission from the producer of the ova.. After that child was conceived, the tubes would of course have to be retied until the couple had made the combined decision to have another. No need for any other contraception, or abortion for unwanted pregnancies.

Planned parenthood - but the planning and the inconvenience of contraception would be firmly in the hands of the possible father, and so would the intrusion into his body.

i wonder how high the incidence of "system failures" would rise if it were the men who faced that intrusion.

TheodoraP

As if I did have a religion how easy would it have been for you to use it as an excuse for my reasons for disagreeing with Abortion

I knew my opinion would not be popular but that's fine

Your opinion is not popular because the majority of women recognise the prejudice, misogyny and patriarchy, that has prevented not only rational discussion about abortion, but which has attempted to prevent it all together.

There is no logical reason why your belief should trump that of anyone else's. I have my own belief about the issue - but I wouldn't attempt to impose it on anyone else by forcing them to accept my interpretation of the moral aspects of abortion.

I suspect, though I can't prove it, that the majority of women opting for an abortion don't do it lightly, don't use it as a form of contraception, and give the matter a lot of thought, and expend a lot of emotional energy when making the decision. I won't list all the reasons why women opt for terminating a pregnancy - it's been done so many times and everyone is familiar with the reasoning.

Women's autonomy over their reproduction rights has been a long and arduous battle - along with all the other fights for equality and emancipation. Many of us (yes, it is a 'popular' view) - and many men - are not about to give up those hard fought for rights without a fight. We are not quietly going to accept a return to the start-line where the right-wing political groups, moral crusaders, misogynists, and assorted groups of over-emotional campaigners who use emotive language like "murdering babies", decide the sovereignty of our reproductive rights.

As for religion - if you'd had one, it would have explained to some extent your stance and made it easier to understand where you're coming from.

Religion dictates a code of conduct and I wouldn't condemn anyone for following such a code to orchestrate their own lives. You can have your beliefs - but they are personal, and if you try to impose them on others, then your religion becomes more than a spiritual sanctuary, it becomes a modus operandi for control of others.

My own personal feelings about abortion is that it's a traumatic and solemn procedure that should not be taken lightly by anyone, and that women (and men) contemplating it should be allowed counselling by those who are uninvolved and impartial and have the best interests of the woman at heart. But ultimately, it must be the woman who makes the decision herself, not you, not me. And the very last thing any woman in this position needs is emotional blackmailing from those who try to coerce through manipulation - either for or against.

The alt right regard abortion as murdering a baby. They refer to the number of abortions conducted since RvW as a "holocaust". It is really a completely different way of thinking. The really interesting thing is that it completely ties in with views of supreme court judge Samuel Alito who quotes 17century lawyer Sir Matthew Hale in his judgement. MH believed a man could not rape his "lawful wife" and sentenced two women as witches. Views the alt right would probably agree with.

foxie48

An opinion is just that, someone's view, it doesn't have to be backed up with facts. Sadly lots of people have extremely offensive opinions on all sorts of subjects but I've never found that getting angry or attacking them has ever changed their opinion, it just gives them air time, but that's just my opinion!

That's absurd. If someone is expressing an opinion and making claims which are factually incorrect, then you are entitled to call them out on that. I'm quite capable of conducting a debate with someone without being angry or attacking them, but when I see someone making statements like that which are blatantly untrue, then I'm going to pull them up on it.

*by being based on …