In defense of the sanctimonious women's studies set || First feminist blog on the internet

Take Action for Women in the UK

Jill

Conservative UK politician David Cameron is calling for the time limit on legal abortion to be lowered. There hasn’t been an official suggestion as to what the new limit would be, but conservatives are suggesting that it be decreased by a full month. It’s important to emphasize that none of the major British medical organizations support the legal abortion cut; neither the British Medical Association nor the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists believe there is a case for changing the existing limits.

Concerned pro-choicers in the UK have a voice on this one, though. You can contact David Cameron directly and let him know that attacking choice is not a vote-winning strategy.

Thanks to Liss for the link.

19 thoughts on Take Action for Women in the UK

  1. Thank you for this– I’m registered to vote in the UK.

    Here’s my email:

    Thank you for revealing your true colours. There was a small chance I would have been fooled into voting Tory in the next election. Despite the fact that I despise what your party stands for, I was fooled by some of your speeches into believing you cared about inequity in this country. I’m glad that you have made this noise about lowering the time limits for abortion, against the opinions of medical organisations, because now I know what you truly stand for.
    I don’t think attempting to import US-style social conservatism into the UK is going to get you any votes right now when the movement stands in such low repute. But nonetheless thank you for the reminder that there are reasons to support the Labour party.

    Meant it, too. Also, the Tories are historically kind of obsessed with imitating the Republicans but how stupid is that right now? I’m certain that this move would be unpopular with the huge majority of people in the UK; the problem is complacency. And Daily Mail readers.

  2. Thank you for this– I’m registered to vote in the UK.

    Here’s my email:

    Thank you for revealing your true colours. There was a small chance I would have been fooled into voting Tory in the next election. Despite the fact that I despise what your party stands for, I was fooled by some of your speeches into believing you cared about inequity in this country. I’m glad that you have made this noise about lowering the time limits for abortion, against the opinions of medical organisations, because now I know what you truly stand for.
    I don’t think attempting to import US-style social conservatism into the UK is going to get you any votes right now when the movement stands in such low repute. But nonetheless thank you for the reminder that there are reasons to support the Labour party.

    Meant it, too. Also, the Tories are historically kind of obsessed with imitating the Republicans but how stupid is that right now? I’m certain that this move would be unpopular with the huge majority of people in the UK; the problem is complacency. And Daily Mail readers.

  3. … because we want open season on babies right up until they’re about to take their first breath?

    Or is it better that a baby in uterus can be pulled apart piece by piece with forceps, while a baby *the same age* in an ICU can be put up for adoption?

  5. Now zuzu, don’t break the anti-choicer’s brain with such terribly confusing questions.

    Eh, on second thought, go ahead.

    p.s. for those who haven’t been paying attention: it’s still quite rare for a fetus at 24-weeks gestation to be viable, abortions at this point are performed for severe fetal deformity or a woman’s health, and they make up less than 1% of all abortions. Outlawing abortions earlier than 24 will almost entirely affect the women who least want to have abortions, and just like no woman ever wants to have an abortion, women certainly don’t want to have abortions at the end of the second trimester.

  6. Any kind of rollback scares me and the “pro-life” people are quite patient and persistent at chipping away at reproductive rights but is it possible that Mr. Cameron has a point as far as saying medicine has progressed to a point where 24 weeks is no longer a good standard? It looks like he does not, why else would the medical organizations come out against it? Seems he has no case though I can see at some point medicine progressing far enough to make 22 week , 20 week or even younger fetuses viable, that should make things interesting with the conservatives.

    Does anyone know what rationale they used to roll it back from 28 to 24?

  8. It is not an issue of:
    1) denying women the right to have an abortion. If it takes you 21 weeks into the term to realise you are pregnant and do not want the child, then something is wrong
    2) Saying that very many abortions are between 20 and 24 weeks or very few
    3) Saying that few births happen between 20 and 24 weeks

    It is the basic fact that at some point we have to stop only catering for a woman’s right and actually consider the child’s right. The basic argument the feminist movement (you all here are too) is giving is that 24 weeks is fine. But by the same argument, when should the cut off be? 1 minute before labour? Afterall if the baby is not yet born, by your argument it has no rights to life.

    if that is your belief, fine. I accept it. But be consistent. before birth, even up to 1 second before labour – abortion is fine.

    If that is not your belief, then you are admitting that abortion is not always acceptable. You are saying that at some point during the pregnancy the baby’s rights outweighs the mother’s, and terminating / aborting is simply murder? If you kill the baby 1 second after birth, it is murder – on that everyone agrees.

    So, the question we have to ask ourselves is (assuming we all agree abortion should be legal):
    Upto which point of the pregnancy is it legal?

    Mr Cameron is suggesting that ethically 24 weeks may be too late. The baby has developed into a recognisable human form and in many respects is fully functioning. The medical viewpoint is not really important, as laws should not be created around emotive bias (erstwise 99% of Brits who read The Sun have backed capital punishment)

  9. Well, I just told David Cameron what I thought, which is that unless any proposed lowering of the limit is backed by reputable medical organisations – which it is currently not – it’s a fairly transparent attempt to appeal to the Daily Hate Mail readers by threatening to impose their values on our legal rights.

    On the other hand, I have never voted Tory in my life, so I have no illusions that they’ll be remotely interested in my views.

  10. denying women the right to have an abortion. If it takes you 21 weeks into the term to realise you are pregnant and do not want the child, then something is wrong

    Oh, goody. Another one who thinks that women schedule late-term abortions on a whim because it interferes with their pedicures.

  11. If it takes you 21 weeks into the term to realise you are pregnant and do not want the child, then something is wrong

    I had one friend who didn’t realise until 7 months in (periods kept coming, was on the contraceptive pill, had never had penetrative sex, and no weight gain until right at the end). I had another who got to the 6 month mark for similar reasons. Both of these were well-educated, intelligent women – who had no symptoms!

    Similar things often happen to older women – mistaking the symptoms of pregnancy for those of menopause until it is too late.

  12. Mr Cameron is suggesting that ethically 24 weeks may be too late. The baby has developed into a recognisable human form and in many respects is fully functioning. The medical viewpoint is not really important, as laws should not be created around emotive bias

    Why listen to medical professionals opinion on whether a fetus can survive, when you can just ask a politician? Note, the end of the article:

    “For example, both the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists have said they do not believe there is a case for changing the time limits for abortion.”

    He said that the government had “no plans” to change the law on abortion.

    When abortion was first legalised in 1967, abortions were allowed up to 28 weeks. In 1990 MPs voted to cut the limit to 24 weeks.

    In 2006, 1,262 abortions were carried out at 22 weeks or later. Around 194,000 abortions were carried out altogether.

    That is less than 1% of abortions this would prevent. Most of those are likely to be for health/emergency reasons.

  13. I’ve had no time for Cameron since he equated full-time parenthood with sitting around doing nothing. Unfortunately, given where I live, my vote will do nothing towards keeping him out of power.

  14. it is an interesting question though. I believe right now Mr. Cameron doesn’t have much of a case as the medical establishment in the UK doesnt back him up but what if in 5, 10, or 50 years we do have the ability to make the majority of 22, 20, heck even 10 week old fetuses viable? They are already able to make abortion past 24 weeks illegal, if that is because that is enough time for the fetus to develop sufficiently then rolling back the limit as medical technology progresses is a logical argument. I still dont know the reason it was rolled back from 28 to 24 weeks but it would be interesting seeing the argument that was made, hard to find though. Yes the majority of abortions past say 20 or 22 weeks may be because of fetal deformities or for the mothers health but not all of them are and the pro-lifers will be able to exploit this.

    This doesnt get into the woman having full and complete bodily autonomy but if women currently don’t have that, the 24-week limit and all, I can see the pro-lifers using this argument very effectively as its logical on its face based on our current laws. Damn it.

  15. zuzu: No offence but use your brain sometimes. I read the article. You did not read what I said, just what I wrote. i.e. you act like a politician and try to discredit by misquoting.

    I do not CARE about a woman’s ‘whims’, that is not the issue.

    Are you FOR or AGAINST abortion up-to the moment of birth?
    Yes or No?

    That is the crux of the debate.

    As for 1% – well thats about 4000 people we are talking about every year.

    As for foetal deformities: who are you Adolf Hitler? Are you suggesting that eugenics is acceptable, provided we mix it in with feminism? What about just aborting a baby because its a girl? Surely thats okay too and you have nothing against Chinese or Indian culture where they view being a woman as being practically deformed?

    Hmm – maybe you should think carefully about why you are in favour of one form of eugenics (physically/mentally handicapped) and not another (gender).

    I will concur, that if the abortion is genuinely for the well-being of the mother’s health then that is a different matter. I remind you that the UK is not the USA and we introduced abortion in a controlled manner. And frankly it is not something I generally support. Moralities, ethics, religion are all stupid arguments for/against, as are ‘rights’. Countries and people operate under the legal framework. The law has legitimised abortion but it also regulates it. And even though I am against abortion, I am not loony to think it is murder (to a point) or think it should not be an option (to a point).

    But in any event my personal view on abortion is not to be a cloud on the issue. The issue is simple and I will reiterate it again…

    Are you FOR or AGAINST abortion up-to the moment of birth?
    Yes or No?
    If no – then where do YOU draw the line?

  16. The difference of course would be putting the ability to decide the best care for a woman and her family into the hands of lawmakers and not into the hands of women. Of course an “ethical” argument put forward by a politician is much more reasonable than one a woman and her doctor can figure out together! It is the state making decisions on the level of disability a family should have to “live with” in a newborn and the level of health risks a woman should have to endure during and post pregnancy.

  17. I do not CARE about a woman’s ‘whims’, that is not the issue.

    Why all the talk about convenience, then? I’m sure you know that a late-term abortion is not undertaken for the sake of “convenience.” Either the fetus is not viable, it has already died and may become septic, or the mother’s life or health is in danger.

    Are you FOR or AGAINST abortion up-to the moment of birth?
    Yes or No?

    That is the crux of the debate.

    I’m absolutely all for it, if it’s warranted. See above.

    As for foetal deformities: who are you Adolf Hitler? Are you suggesting that eugenics is acceptable, provided we mix it in with feminism?

    Some deformities are so severe that the child will not live after birth for very long, perhaps dying an agonizing death. And in many cases, these deformities are undetectable until late in a wanted pregnancy.

    Really, Geoff, you’ve been spending too much time looking at photos of 8-month-old infants and telling yourself that’s what a four-week embryo looks like.

    What about just aborting a baby because its a girl? Surely thats okay too and you have nothing against Chinese or Indian culture where they view being a woman as being practically deformed?

    The problem there is with the culture’s preference for boys, not with abortion in itself.

  18. zuzu as long as your views are consistent, that you agree with abortion (no matter what), up to the moment of birth, then that’s fine. And that is indeed your opinion and it is indeed consistent. And that’s all that matters.

    BTW did you watch the film 4 months, 3 weeks and 2 days? You’ll like it.

Comments are currently closed.