The ‘My Body My Choice’ thing is one of those utterly false sound bites.
Once the two gametes join to form the zygote the genetic makeup of the ‘fetus’ is his and her bodies.
The feminist slogan needs to be truthful, ‘Our Bodies. My Choice’. That woman are given total freedom to kill the man’s child without his input is remarkable.
Since 1980 there have been an estimated 1,615,907,000 abortions, close to two Billion abortions. That’s a lot of dead babies. To a Liberal that’s a lot of positive actions, freeing woman from whatever it was they did not want – although a fairly high numbers of them were forced – check out https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/abortion-rates-by-country to see who has them, USA and UK are right there in the pack of highest, along with Kazakhstan, Belarus, China, Bulgaria, Russia.
Back around 1978 I was hanging around some drunk PhD Philosophy students and for some reasons they were telling dead baby jokes, I always remembered one: “what is the difference between a ton of bricks and a ton of dead babies?” Answer, “You can’t move a ton of bricks with a pitch fork.”
Tell you what, Mr Artzen.
The day that it is possible to transplant a fetus into a man and have you raise it within your body is the day you can tell a woman what to do with that fetus. If she doesn’t want the kid, but you do, then get the fetus on up in yourself.
Peter LR
2 years ago
Thanks, Georgia. The concern is genuinely a medical one and not ethical. I find Ella is usually very good in her analysis of things but with abortion rights she makes no allowance for any criticism whatsoever.
Key Olney
2 years ago
The author writes,”a staggering 7% of British women have been pressured into an abortion by their husband or partner.” “Pressured,” eh? And what do you call it when “my body, my choice” results in 20 years of child support payments for another person who does not make the same choice for himself?
Exactly right. Men need to have the option of choosing not to become parents, just as women can, by opting out of fatherhood before the baby is born.
That would go a long way towards real gender equality.
Edward De Beukelaer
2 years ago
This topic is of course a mixture between medical and social issues. When talking about medical issues we tend to think technical, sadly, what about the women-person involved, the human support she needs? (apart from the pure clinical-medical-technical support)
It is about time that in every medical discussion we start to see medicine being both a science and an art: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33145-9/fulltext
Chris Bredge
2 years ago
The decision to have an abortion should always be the woman’s choice, preferably after discussion with and agreement of her partner. Once we get past Covid restrictions and in person doctor’s visits are once again permitted, the dispensing of the pills could be arranged after the doctor has confirmed the date of conception if required, which would address one of the author’s points.
The percentage risks of 3% and 7% are quite low for complications and indeed, it is likely that similar percentages would apply without the pills at all – pregnancy is, after all, a very dangerous physical process for women – so shouldn’t put women off if they really don’t want to have a(nother) baby. If something goes wrong then I don’t think anyone is suggesting that administering the pills at home means that they can’t go to hospital.
In short, this article seems to be a thinly veiled objection to any kind of abortion, full stop. The method is immaterial to the author’s real views.
M Spahn
2 years ago
Probably there are some legitimate concerns. But the fact that the article is so one-sided inevitably suggests that the author is simply against abortion generally, and is grasping at every available straw instead of saying so forthrightly. I can’t respect that.
Perhaps it will catch on with other proceedures? Can’t get to the hospital for that hip replacement, a pack containing full instructions and tools and a willing amateur. In the pre-1967 novels the illegal doctor started the proceedure , then the girl went home in a taxi & if it worked she phoned a doctor & said she’d had a miscarriage. Of course if it didn’t work she bled to death-happy days?
Pre-1967 time women had no choice and the results were appalling. Covid restrictions made giving women even more options necessary – I support the increase in the range of options that a woman has. I do not wish to see self-administered medication as the only option.
Even if a medic is watching the woman self medicate via zoom they can’t get there if theres a problem & as been stated some women don’t know how advanced their pregnancy is. Also having such dangerous medication in the house means a danger to children & pets.
A brave article, thank you.
The ‘My Body My Choice’ thing is one of those utterly false sound bites.
Once the two gametes join to form the zygote the genetic makeup of the ‘fetus’ is his and her bodies.
The feminist slogan needs to be truthful, ‘Our Bodies. My Choice’. That woman are given total freedom to kill the man’s child without his input is remarkable.
Since 1980 there have been an estimated 1,615,907,000 abortions, close to two Billion abortions. That’s a lot of dead babies. To a Liberal that’s a lot of positive actions, freeing woman from whatever it was they did not want – although a fairly high numbers of them were forced – check out https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/abortion-rates-by-country to see who has them, USA and UK are right there in the pack of highest, along with Kazakhstan, Belarus, China, Bulgaria, Russia.
Back around 1978 I was hanging around some drunk PhD Philosophy students and for some reasons they were telling dead baby jokes, I always remembered one: “what is the difference between a ton of bricks and a ton of dead babies?” Answer, “You can’t move a ton of bricks with a pitch fork.”
Tell you what, Mr Artzen.
The day that it is possible to transplant a fetus into a man and have you raise it within your body is the day you can tell a woman what to do with that fetus. If she doesn’t want the kid, but you do, then get the fetus on up in yourself.
Thanks, Georgia. The concern is genuinely a medical one and not ethical. I find Ella is usually very good in her analysis of things but with abortion rights she makes no allowance for any criticism whatsoever.
The author writes,”a staggering 7% of British women have been pressured into an abortion by their husband or partner.” “Pressured,” eh? And what do you call it when “my body, my choice” results in 20 years of child support payments for another person who does not make the same choice for himself?
Exactly right. Men need to have the option of choosing not to become parents, just as women can, by opting out of fatherhood before the baby is born.
That would go a long way towards real gender equality.
This topic is of course a mixture between medical and social issues. When talking about medical issues we tend to think technical, sadly, what about the women-person involved, the human support she needs? (apart from the pure clinical-medical-technical support)
It is about time that in every medical discussion we start to see medicine being both a science and an art:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)33145-9/fulltext
The decision to have an abortion should always be the woman’s choice, preferably after discussion with and agreement of her partner. Once we get past Covid restrictions and in person doctor’s visits are once again permitted, the dispensing of the pills could be arranged after the doctor has confirmed the date of conception if required, which would address one of the author’s points.
The percentage risks of 3% and 7% are quite low for complications and indeed, it is likely that similar percentages would apply without the pills at all – pregnancy is, after all, a very dangerous physical process for women – so shouldn’t put women off if they really don’t want to have a(nother) baby. If something goes wrong then I don’t think anyone is suggesting that administering the pills at home means that they can’t go to hospital.
In short, this article seems to be a thinly veiled objection to any kind of abortion, full stop. The method is immaterial to the author’s real views.
Probably there are some legitimate concerns. But the fact that the article is so one-sided inevitably suggests that the author is simply against abortion generally, and is grasping at every available straw instead of saying so forthrightly. I can’t respect that.
Its pretty comical isn’t it.
So, another expert who doesn’t trust women, ho hum…
Perhaps it will catch on with other proceedures? Can’t get to the hospital for that hip replacement, a pack containing full instructions and tools and a willing amateur. In the pre-1967 novels the illegal doctor started the proceedure , then the girl went home in a taxi & if it worked she phoned a doctor & said she’d had a miscarriage. Of course if it didn’t work she bled to death-happy days?
Pre-1967 time women had no choice and the results were appalling. Covid restrictions made giving women even more options necessary – I support the increase in the range of options that a woman has. I do not wish to see self-administered medication as the only option.
Even if a medic is watching the woman self medicate via zoom they can’t get there if theres a problem & as been stated some women don’t know how advanced their pregnancy is. Also having such dangerous medication in the house means a danger to children & pets.