Science Abortions are for everyone – it’s time for fully inclusive services - Abortions4All - ITT: arguments for post-birth abortion

A conversation on how we think about abortion access and how inclusive our services are is long over due. For far too long, the abortion movement has championed access for all those that require abortion care but with little acknowledgement of the wider structures that govern our reproductive health.

While it is estimated that a quarter of all pregnancies end in abortion – the idea that abortion is always a clear choice is far too simplistic and minimises the experiences of lots of those seeking abortion care. Recent Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) data revealed that black women are more likely to report a consecutive abortion compared to their white and Asian counterparts.

While the difference is small, there are many reasons for this that typical pro-choice narratives simply fail to address. Those racialised as non-white are likely to be paid 10% less than their white counterparts even when educational attainment is adjusted for. Black women are at heightened risk of experiencing intimate partner violence and less likely to receive adequate support when they do report it.


Black motherhood is plagued with sterotypes of young black teenage mothers who are incompetent or dependent on governement welfare. A recent report into maternal deaths within the UK revealed that black women are five times more likely than their white counterparts to die in childbirth and black babies are more likely to be stillborn. These statistics are not clearly explained by increased comorbidities (the presence of more than one disorder in the same person) or socio-economic conditions amongst black people. A recent Royal College of Obstetric and Gynaecology event highlighted how prejudice and unconscious bias affects the healthcare provided to black patients, including having their pain taken less seriously.

For many black women, becoming pregnant goes beyond traditional anxieties like “how will I cope?” Instead, some consider the rather traumatic question: “Could I die?”

The circumstances for gender non-conforming people is even more bleak with very few medical studies on their experiences of accessing healthcare. In one small study, the majority of respondents were not using contraception, as they incorrectly believed that gender-affirming hormones would also act as contraception, leaving them at possible risk of unplanned pregnancy. While data from the US shows that poor reproductive health is even greater among black trans and non-binary people, with significant rates of sexually transmitted infections and HIV; there is very little information on their experiences of accessing healthcare within a UK context.

It is difficult to determine how many gender non-conforming people are accessing abortion services as the current Department of Health reporting forms fail to include a box that collects gender information. However, the same form still includes a section on marital status, which is as useful as my passport has proven to be in 2020. Despite limited public health data, we do know that trans and non-binary people have poor sexual and reproductive health, but our institutions still treat this population as if they do not exist. How can you advocate for service improvement for populations that are not recorded as existing in the first place?

William Horn, a freelance writer who was originally based in London but now lives in Brooklyn, started taking gender affirming hormones nearly 10 years ago. He told me he feels that healthcare providers fail to consider anything outside of taking hormones.

Frequently, arguments against trans inclusive facilities position trans people as a threat to our safety – despite the data actually showing that cis-gender people continue to be much more of a threat to theirs. For those trans men and non-binary people who do continue with their pregnancy, there is little medical information available and many experience transphobia and erasure from services. There is an increase in intimate partner violence experienced by pregnant people, so we as providers should consider the additional mental burden that continuing with a pregnancy may take on those that already live in a world where survival can be a challenge.

The idea that individuals choose to have an abortion is outdated and fails to account for the structural dimensions that can lead some groups to have an one. Until we start to both acknowledge and understand these within our healthcare system, our abortion services will continue to overlook large groups of people and fail to take a holistic approach to their life circumstances.

In the United States, more providers are familiar with terms such as reproductive justice, a term coined by women of colour to highlight how structural oppression affects reproductive health – the application to the UK continues to lag behind. Recent Black Lives Matter protests where black pregnant women hold signs expressing their concern for the safety of their unborn child has brought to the fore how these issues overlap and intersect; we can longer address them in isolation.

Mara Clarke founder of the Abortion Support Network, an organisation that ensures those that require an abortion have access to the financial means to do so, says: “We know that many of our clients have been migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, members of the Irish traveller community. We don’t ask our clients who they are or how they got pregnant. We don’t ask if they are women or what their gender identity is. We don’t care, and we know that women and pregnant people with money can access services without having to explain or justify themselves. As an abortion fund, we want any person who needs an abortion to have that same experience.

While many in the sector are starting to understand the importance of acknowledging the diverse experiences of abortion, it is integral to providing good quality care that we go a step further and demand better research, data collection and information on the experiences of those that are most marginalised by society.
It is time that we build our movements with diverse experiences in mind and it is time that our abortion services reflected the stories of the communities that we serve.
 
I was just wondering if you thought keeping them alive was ethical. In many people's eyes, they were semi-cadavers.

Killing them would not be ethical. I thought the point of being pro-choice was to elevate the principle of bodily autonomy.


You do realize babies start out as single-celled organisms, right?

Single-celled human organisms.


When you say human life starts when the sperm fertilizes the egg, you're saying single celled zygotes are worth as much as your fully formed bff Gary.

Yes.


Cruelty is subjective.

Of course-- after all, most psychopaths have less regard for even human life. My point is that cruelty needs to be evaluated by assessing the act and not how you feel about it or even how the other party feels. You can be exploited without knowing it, but your ignorance doesn't mean you were any less exploited.


I don't want to quantify the humanity of fully formed humans because it would be divisive and things function better when sentient people don't feel othered.

If you can't go all the way in your quantification of sentience purely because of external considerations, there's no value in you doing so in the first place.


They're not children though. Until a certain point, they're cellular goo less complex than a housefly
But they're not houseflies. They certainly aren't descended from houseflies, and they don't have housefly DNA. You keep appealing to the size and shape of the fetus as though it demonstrates anything except your prejudice against those literally smaller or shaped differently than you.


But how would sending your children straight to heaven not be merciful?
You deprived them of a gift from God and facilitated the unnatural severance of their soul from their body.


Sacrificing your soul for the souls of your children would be almost Christlike, if you think about it.
Millions of people over hundreds of years have thought about it and would either think that you're mocking them or you're a drunk.


She has a point. If you think abortion is wrong, you should probably adopt some unwanted kids.
Never mind, you reek of your mother's milk.

The challenge was an impotent flail by someone who has no legs to stand on and has repeatedly laid bare her insecurity and simplicity. It was a non sequitur from someone who can only hope to throw "Dumb" ratings and try to peek out her feeble mind on occasion to render an "ACKTUALLY" like a child trying to converse with adults on geopolitics. It is in fact an endstage argument that only serves to protect her fragile self-esteem.

Her argument is a non sequitur; feticide is murder, and a necessary evil at best. My having adopted children is irrelevant to the truths encapsulated in those assertions. Not having adopted children (since I'm not even married) is not a demonstration of hypocrisy, as she tries to imply, nor does it weaken my stance ("do everything you can to avoid considering murdering your offspring"). She wants to continue to personalize an issue that is incontrovertibly societal, because she has no connection to society.

Your defense of her stupidity is itself incoherent. I want that people recognize abortion for what it is, have discussions with that in mind, and take actions to avoid a scenario where they will even consider abortion for anything except the most dire of circumstances-- because the issue is not just abortion, but why it's considered at all.
 
Anyone else here thought this thread would turn to shit by page 5? It's basically inevitable when you try to discuss a wedge issue like abortion online, or really anywhere.

Anyways, to actually contribute, I'm not going to get into my personal moral objections to the topic all that much, they really don't matter, and I have no real way to enforce them outside of voting, which is a band-aid at best. But to sum up what I think about it:

It should be legal, but only used as a last resort, It should be available to those who need it under duress but not paid by the taxpayer/state except under extreme conditions of need.

The inverse of the argument is also valid, but is really another topic, and that's how to halt Shaneequa/Jenny-Ann-Barby from having 9 damn kids to game the broken welfare system.

People sperging itt about abstinence/birth control are on the right road with 2 deflated tires and a map of the wrong state. The real issue is self control in the face of base urges, and that goes equally for both sexes.
 
If they have no mind they have no autonomy, doofus.
Autonomy's your argument, now? Newborns aren't very autonomous to begin with.

I'm not sure why you think mindless human cells matter

Because I can easily dismiss the "mindfulness" of anyone if I cared to, and we've in fact done so throughout history with disastrous consequences.

Well, according to the dictionary, you can't be cruel to something that can't suffer.

So when a child is groomed, and doesn't recognize the depravity performed against them, they're not suffering an act of cruelty?

There is a massive difference between a human who can be a victim of cruelty and a human who cannot.

There is not. We even concede that nonhuman animals can be the victims of cruelty, and we uniformly consider them lesser beings.

I honestly don't see why their human DNA matters.

Because outside of that, cellular growth, and the lineage that ensures their humanity, any other method of determining worth is either vague, demands a quantification that the proponent isn't ready to perform (e.g. degrees of sentience given the ever-developing mind), is based on a measure that's constantly being revised (e.g. viability in light of medical advances), or any combination of the three.

That is to say, it matters because it's the only solid objective factor-- they are living human beings... or they are not.

If you establish that, say, a born subject has human DNA and was born of humans, you can't then say that under any circumstances that they're somehow subhuman and make sense. You can do this if you base their humanity on how they look or how many extremities or organs they do or don't have. Of course, this invites the consideration of degrees of humanity, a question you actively refuse to answer for reasons that have nothing to do with the question itself.

Potentially going to hell is a gift from god?
Free will is a gift from God, yes. Being able to choose communion with God, and in effect, choose to love at all, is a gift from God according to traditional Christian theology.

I guess that makes sense from a Christian point of view, but I can't wrap my mind around it. If I believed killing myself would let me avoid hell I'd happily commit sudoku right now. Anyways, if god has a problem with it, he could easily reincarnate the fetuses in some other body. He's supposed to be omnipotent after all.

Did you crawl out of Reddit?

Nonbelievers made fun of Jesus in the same way.
Those nonbelievers also had a stake in the conversation, because they all purported to be of the same religious community and viewed Jesus as a heretic.

Insulting your opponent isn't an argument, lmao.

Yeah. The argument is the argument.

You should probably get married ASAP and adopt some of those babies you care about.
I'm currently not in a position to get married.

You're particularly juvenile, and I say that on the heels of you lazily handling Christian theology for no purpose.

The argument you defend, and have now adopted, has nothing to do with my position. It has to do with my motivation for taking that position. It's ad hominem in place of an actual retort to my argument about abortion being feticide; it is fallacious on its face, and has nothing to do with my principal argument. You can call me a hypocrite, but even if I was, I still wouldn't be wrong. That's why the assertion is irrelevant.

You may as well say "pro-birther REKT" to cap it off. That's the level you're operating on.

If you want to convince people that abortion is murder, you need to find a better argument than "all human lives matter and if you disagree you're a bad person". Those are just appeals to emotion.

It's actually fucking ridiculous that I can make this argument in multiple forms throughout this thread, and after yourself contending with rational argumentation, you insist that I'm only making emotional appeals.
 
Última edición:
Considering the gigantic autistic shitshow that happens literally EVERY SINGLE TIME someone posts an abortion-related article, these threads are getting real fucking tiring and predictable. We get at least one of these sorts of threads every two weeks or so, and it's always the exact same people using the exact same arguments almost word-for-word. It's like the A&N equivalent of Groundhog Day.

If I wanted to watch two groups of apes hurl shit at one-another for hours, I'd just go to my local zoo.
 
I deleted my debate posts because this long argument was beyond autistic. Sorry for shitting up the thread.

In short, my opinion is that if something has not developed consciousness, its "life" doesn't matter. During early pregnancy a fetus cannot be conscious due to lacking a brain, but there's a real case to be made that late term abortion is murder.
 
Última edición:
Reading this thread is like watching a heated debate between greek philosophers and downy kindergartners and no side realizes that they have no chance to convince the other side towards their ideas. This shit could go on for an eternity with the only difference at the end being that everyone is angrier and more convinced that they themselves are right. Who really wins at that kind of debate, I wonder?
 
@Zero Day Defense I agree with everything you say but you’re wasting your time arguing with subhumans.

I do not think they are subhuman, only have not been taught to respect the gravity of the situation they are dealt.

It is like buying a dozen eggs at the supermarket. Cheap, easy, you have not the first clue went into having the eggs because you are actively taught not to. But having your own laying chickens is fucking fascinating. They scream for an hour before they lay. Pace, scream, fight. roosters wait expectantly, like watching myself in labor. It no simple automated product anymore. But because you have no idea what went into it, you have no respect, it was not convenient to learn.

So it is not convenient to learn all the things that were improbable and had to go right even for the most fertile couple to conceive at all. It is just taken for granted normal healthy children happen with no thought effort and therefore are entirely disposable.

I think abortion should be free and legal for incest, rape, domestic abuse, health of mother/fetal deformity. But otherwise needs to be seen as an absolute risk of having sex. If that pisses men and women off, whatever. Having babies is the entire biological point of having sex. To ignore that just to live in deep fucking denial.
 
Reading this thread is like watching a heated debate between greek philosophers and downy kindergartners and no side realizes that they have no chance to convince the other side towards their ideas. This shit could go on for an eternity with the only difference at the end being that everyone is angrier and more convinced that they themselves are right. Who really wins at that kind of debate, I wonder?
It's never been about convincing the other side to come over to yours dummy. The big brains are jockeying for position to land a few zingers that'll farm stickers, and the small brains are trying to bait their enemies into spergery deep enough to warrant moderation. I don't care if we're talking about abortions or extremist right-wing Lego® sculptures, I'm just waiting for a chance to make "nice loops, Toucan Sam!' a contextual punchline.

P.S. scrape poor people's babies IDGAF
 
I though you won't have early menopause if you only get a partial hysto i.e. you yeet the uterus but leave the ovaries in? Because that's what I want.

That said hystos are notoriously hard to get approved for even for medical reasons. One of my friends went through like 3 or 4 doctors before she found one willing to give her one even though she had a shitton of painful medical problems, all because she was 29 and didnt have any kids.

You still have the risk of an ectopic with that, and the issue with uterine removal is that you will, definitely and eventually, get a vaginal prolapse because the supporting structures and ligaments that hold the end of the vagina up inside are gone. They can do some stuff with sutures but there‘s not much left up there to stitch anything to.

It‘s considered a more acceptable risk in old ladies because well, old, but prolapse in young women is a serious issue. Bladder prolapse is also a pretty common issue.

Tbh female sterilisation in any form is more dangerous and has more reported side effects than vasectomy, which is why in a couple who consider their family complete, the medical advice will always be in support of vasectomy rather than female sterilisation.

Vasectomy complications are probably hugely underreported though.
 
You still have the risk of an ectopic with that, and the issue with uterine removal is that you will, definitely and eventually, get a vaginal prolapse because the supporting structures and ligaments that hold the end of the vagina up inside are gone. They can do some stuff with sutures but there‘s not much left up there to stitch anything to.

It‘s considered a more acceptable risk in old ladies because well, old, but prolapse in young women is a serious issue. Bladder prolapse is also a pretty common issue.

Tbh female sterilisation in any form is more dangerous and has more reported side effects than vasectomy, which is why in a couple who consider their family complete, the medical advice will always be in support of vasectomy rather than female sterilisation.

Vasectomy complications are probably hugely underreported though.
Really? Damn. Is there any other way to neutralize the unpleasant liability that is a uterus? Cause I want neither the Satan's waterfall shit nor any risk of pregnancy (especially since I live in a state that wants to force me to continue one against my will). I currently have an IUD and it's great, but those aren't 100% (btw that article you posted earlier about a woman who got knocked up with an IUD was nightmare fuel).
 
Really? Damn. Is there any other way to neutralize the unpleasant liability that is a uterus? Cause I want neither the Satan's waterfall shit nor any risk of pregnancy (especially since I live in a state that wants to force me to continue one against my will). I currently have an IUD and it's great, but those aren't 100% (btw that article you posted earlier about a woman who got knocked up with an IUD was nightmare fuel).

IDK, honestly, hon. No one is yet willing to remove mine despite it being a highly troublesome and damaged organ which I am now 110% finished with.

We are using the IUD and vasectomy combo. We would need to get really, really fucking unlucky. It would be really unlucky as I couldn’t carry to term now due to lasting uterine damage from my last delivery. I would split open like an overripe tomato before it was anywhere near time for bubs to emerge and survive. Plus... ruptured uterus is obviously life endangering for me.

Long term abstinence would be safest for me, but.... the other person‘s gotta agree to that, and absolutely vehemently does not.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo