Supporting abortion to term.

[VegansTasteBetter]

Asking this question in feminism because, 1. I don't want a pro/against bunfight and 2 because I have only ever seen this comment made by feminists. *

I have seen the comment made that someone would support an abortion up until term for any reason (so in theory just because they changed their mind would be acceptable I guess).

If you take this stance is it because you feel to decide a cut off date for abortions would be to choose an arbitrary date in a pregnancy and that we need legally to have free access to abortions... but actually if your mate said, "just found out I am 37 weeks pregnant really don't want it, going for an abortion" you would be horrified and because you know it isn't likely to ever happen

or

if in the above scenario would you happily (assuming it were legal) take your friend down to the clinic to get an abortion because you belive the mother's choice trumps the fetus/babies right to life?

I'm prochoice but I have a real difficulty with people saying that it's acceptable for any reason up till term. And in the above scenario (if it were legal) I'd support my friend's right to demand to be induced early for her mental health and to give the baby up for adoption but not for an abortion.

• disclaimer: I am a feminist but don't support this view

[LineRunnerSpartanNaked]

I believe the argument is that a woman's body is her body, and that her body belongs to her and not to the state.

[LaurieFairyCake]

I don't know any feminists who would support abortion up to term.

Possibly a theoretical feminist perspective (if such a thing were possible) but not one mired in human, female reality.

[avenueone]

I thought the fetus became a legal subject at 24 weeks?

[Rubirosa]

I am a feminist and support a woman's total autonomy over her body. Of course, I would be horrified if someone I knew had an abortion at 37 weeks (or at 20 weeks to be honest) but I would recognise that it is their right to choose.

[VegansTasteBetter]

I've only ever seen it on the internet I'll admit fairy, no one in rl has ever said anything like that to me. So could be theoretical something or another (my friends aren't clever enough for that sort of thing ).

[GemmaPomPom]

I believe the argument is that a woman's body is her body, and that her body belongs to her and not to the state.

But it's not the woman's body we're talking about, is it? It's the baby's body and you would have to kill it. So why not let the poor thing be born and adopted?

[VegansTasteBetter]

Does it avenue? I diidn't think the fetus/baby ever had any legal rights before birth.
easily could be wrong though

[Mintyy]

I don't support it.

[Rubirosa]

I believe abortion to term is currently legal anyway in cases of disability.

[VegansTasteBetter]

I think it is rubirosa

[AfterGoldsandCoffeeSilvers]

Not a feminist arguement for me, its a disablist one. You know abortion is legal to term for a disabled baby?

[LaurieFairyCake]

I couldn't support 'choice' to abort a 37 week old baby Rubirosa - just can't imagine it.

The right to autonomy over our bodies would have to stop somewhere I think.

Quite simply the child can survive outside the womb at 37 weeks (and indeed at 23) so therefore i would think of it as infanticide at 37 weeks.

[VegansTasteBetter]

I assumed it was severe disability (like could be life limiting or cause life long pain) is it not Aftergold?

[ChickensArentEligableForGold]

Also agree with LineRunner. I might not personally agree with another woman's choice, but I want total control over my body and what happens to it. I don't think you can separate those two things.

[AfterGoldsandCoffeeSilvers]

x-post. But why is that not so shocking?

[LaurieFairyCake]

Agree this is an anti- disability argument.

For me unless the quality of life was so poor/death was very likely I couldn't support that for a disabled child or an NT one.

[VegansTasteBetter]

I would too Laurie, which is why I would accept her right to induce early, but I would feel insisting on abortion at that point would be purely unnecessary as the baby is going to have to come out either way anyway.

[LineRunnerSpartanNaked]

I'm saying what I believe the argument might be, as I have read and understood it.

The law in the UK on the legal right of a foetus to non-destruction is a complex, other discussion.

My own views are entirely separate again.

[AfterGoldsandCoffeeSilvers]

Yeah, it is. But its still to term. Its still a baby that could be born the following day.

[Rubirosa]

Why does it matter what the disability is Vegans? Surely the life of a disabled foetus is just as important as that of a non-disabled foetus? It's ridiculous that you can choose to kill one and not the other.

[VegansTasteBetter]

I wouldn't have a child who was going to be in pain. I don't think it makes me a horrible person though. I just couldn't.

[VegansTasteBetter]

to explain, I would choose to give birth to a child who was going to be severely disabled but could live and not be in pain or die shortly after.

[LaurieFairyCake]

X-post.

I think we do have to separate them. That's what life is legally, a whole load of grey area and case law.

Actually, that's what life is generally isn't it? We can't be black and White about this - a foetus that can survive outside the womb becomes an independent life doesnt it?

So that's then 2 people to consider and not just one. I'd be quite happy for a 37 week old to be removed at the woman's insistence (but not killed).

[VegansTasteBetter]

I can understand that might be an abhorrent idea to some.