Attack on Abortion Law
- This topic has 223 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 2 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This topic really is quite a hobby horse of yours, alanjjohnstone.
If men are to achieve full sexual freedom (i.e. the freedom to have sex without responsibility) it is essential that abortion be freely available to backup contraception.
Abortion on demand is vital if men are to be able to have women on demand.
This was one of the reasons that 19th century feminists opposed abortion: they regarded it as a way for men to have sex with women without having to take responsibility for any resulting children by getting the women to risk their lives in what were then dangerous operations in order to prevent the child being born.
You will find that i often follow-up threads on the forum.
But yes, i do think that access to terminations should be defended, and where restricted for political or religious purposes, expanded. (as with many other health facilities such as maternity see the recent report on maternity healthcare for minorities)
It is women who are predominantly out in the streets protesting against the archaic old laws and the draconian new laws, mostly enacted by patriarchal legislatures influenced by misogynist religions.
Are men supposed to with-hold their solidarity and sympathy because of their gender?
Wouldn’t your argument that abortions facilitate the sexual exploitation of women equally apply to the provision of contraception?
“You will find that i often follow-up threads on the forum.”
Oh really? I hadn’t noticed.
“Wouldn’t your argument that abortions facilitate the sexual exploitation of women equally apply to the provision of contraception?”
Not in my book. Most couples, at least those I know, assume joint responsibility for averting conception. How can decisions which are shared and freely agreed facilitate exploitation?
Opposing anti-abortion laws is not about imposing abortions but supporting a woman’s ability to choose to have control over her reproduction, especially now that non-invasive surgical procedures are available for early pregnancies.
You inferred in your first post that abortions exist because men seek sex without responsibility for the consequences (taken from here i suspect http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/mother/against_1.shtml)
Almost three-quarters of abortions are sought by married women, the majority already mothers, (i’ll add my own caveat to the statistic that in some patriarchal societies there is gender preference which means abortions are carried out if a girl so we can’t be confident of the statistic).
There is also the eugenics policy in some countries of forced sterilisation rather than voluntary.
With the fall in fertility rates i perceive the real danger will be the possibility of compulsory pregnancy.
“Opposing anti-abortion laws is not about imposing abortions but supporting a woman’s ability to choose to have control over her reproduction, especially now that non-invasive surgical procedures are available for early pregnancies.”
Responsible women (and men) choose to have control over reproduction by the use of contraceptive devices, which are many and varied and, in most cases, highly efficient.
And eminently preferable in every respect to abortion.
https://clinicquotes.com/category/abortion-pictures/pictures-of-abortions/
If men were able to get pregnant they would be the first ones to be protesting on the streets. Abortion is not a problem of having or not having sex responsibility, it is an issue related to the problem of women in our society.
There are millions of poor women who do not have access to preservative and contraceptive devices, and to sex educations, and millions are also affected by religion.
It is similar to the case of many feminist women in the developed countries who think that their problem would be resolved by carrying an executive briefcase or a high paying job when poor women are having a lot of social problems and would be hard for them to obtain high paying jobs and professional education.
Are women who do choose to have terminations irresponsible
Being pro-choice should not lead to the conclusion that abortion is a substitute and alternative to family-planning by contraception.
It merely means women have more control over their body and can choose whether to carry a pregnancy to full term or not.
Nor is pro-choice without checks on time limits and medical conditions placed on when an abortion is permissible.
Thailand has passed changes to the country’s criminal code, giving women full abortion rights in the first trimester of their pregnancy, almost a year after a top court ruled that existing curbs ran counter to the constitution.
Pro-choice groups say the amendments do not go far enough and warn that many women may still turn to risky illegal abortions unless the government also commits to raising awareness and expanding access.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/12/anti-abortion-activists-womens-rights
“saying the quiet part out loud – that they’re not just restriction abortion, they want to end access to abortion entirely”
Nearer to home
The Democratic Unionist Party has proposed a new law to prevent abortions being carried out in Northern Ireland in cases of non-fatal disabilities.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-56041850
South Carolina became the latest US state to ban most abortions.
The “South Carolina Fetal Heartbeat and Protection from Abortion Act” is similar to abortion restriction laws that have passed in a dozen states including neighbouring Georgia, as well as Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi and Ohio. In 2019, Missouri approved a ban on abortions after eight weeks of pregnancy and Alabama outright outlawed all abortions.
South Carolina’s bill requires doctors to perform ultrasounds to check for a heartbeat in the fetus. If one is detected, the abortion can only be performed if the pregnancy was caused by rape or incest or the mother’s life is in danger.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/2/18/south-carolina-bans-most-abortions-planned-parenthood-sues
The impasse in Northern Ireland where the Unionists and Sinn Fein are united to thwart abortion reform.
Women from the most deprived backgrounds are almost three times more likely to have abortions than women from the wealthiest backgrounds, and the gap has worsened during the pandemic.
In 2020, women from the most deprived backgrounds accounted for 16.5% of all abortions, and women from the wealthiest backgrounds accounted for 5.9%. The gap has widened since 2019, when the figures were 13.7% and 6.6%. Data suggests that the pandemic’s impact on wages may have played a role in women’s decisions on whether to continue a pregnancy.“Unintended pregnancy is a fact of life, but women will make very different decisions about whether to continue that pregnancy based on the circumstances she finds herself and her existing family,” Clare Murphy, the chief executive of British Pregnancy Advisory Service said. “Our research shows women on low incomes are feeling a deep sense of anxiety about their employment prospects and their financial precarity. At the same time, families are facing rising costs, including energy and food bills, as a result of spending more time at home. Almost two-thirds of the women we cared for who already had children told us financial factors played a role in their decision-making.”
Science adds a complication to the debate
Artificial wombs could also undermine the basis of women’s reproductive rights and freedoms. In England, Scotland and Wales, the abortion limit is pegged to the viability of foetuses outside the human body; it’s currently set at 24 weeks’ gestation because foetuses at an earlier stage of development aren’t expected to be able to survive outside the womb. What if all foetuses, and even embryos, are potentially viable because they could be gestated inside an artificial womb? Any unborn child could be considered to have a right to life.
In countries where abortion is legal, access to it derives from a woman’s right to choose what happens to her body. But if unwanted babies could be “rescued” by technology – gestated inside an artificial womb and then given up for adoption – then abortion could be simultaneously pro-choice and “pro-life”. Why should a mother be able to decide to terminate an unwanted baby if an artificial womb can save its life?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/apr/27/us-tiny-towns-anti-abortion-ordinances
23 tiny towns in Texas have approved local laws declaring themselves “sanctuary cities for the unborn”, passing ordinances to make the procedure punishable by a $2,000 fine.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.