Jailing a mother of three - WTF

Seeing what Dcousin(S) went through for nearly three months in hospital is what crystallised the "no time limits" view for me. She was utterly miserable, bored out of her mind, paying out hand over fist for continuation of kennels for her Dcat back home, and this was for a baby that she wanted!

The Haguing of Dcousin(A) made me realise just how vulnerable children make women.

Not having kids doesn't mean not paying attention to the lives of those who do.

Oh look, it's the anti-choice "you had a right to be born" argument. No I didn't, and shouldn't.

It's up there with mothers who have a tough time telling women who can't have children because of infertility, that motherhood is no big deal.

Not even remotely the same. It's because motherhood is a big deal that it should be a gift to the child given freely, not coerced by the State at any stage.

First, see the attached pic.

Second, no I don't have kids. I don't want any, I'm autistic and wouldn't be able to care for them, and I have primary tokophobia. I joined Mumsnet for FWR and stayed for Relationships. And all that's irrelevant because decriminalising abortion doesn't force you to have one.

But before that point there was the opportunity to end the pregnancy. Abortion should be easily accessible and a basic right for all women to be able to do easily and freely (and I think the laws do need overhauling to make it even more so) before a certain cut off point. The fact that some countries and women don’t have access to this is abhorrent.

24 weeks barring medical issues is I think acceptable for this cut off point. Beyond this the baby is viable and their right to life has to be balanced as well as the effect it could have on the medical profession.

the right easy to access abortion laws with sensible cut offs and precautions in place should allow motherhood to be given freely. that shouldnt be 34 werks

Oh the privilege of feeling sick about something you literally wouldn't be able to feel sick about if you were not nurtured by your mother's womb, given birth to, then supported with considerable expense and resources when you had no conception of the self to make an argument for that support.

It's up there with mothers who have a tough time telling women who can't have children because of infertility, that motherhood is no big deal.

Why the interrogation about the previous poster's status as a mother? It's perfectly possible to hold a different view to another woman without having to be childless and never to have experienced pregnancy.

In fact, being pregnant and giving birth (twice) served to absolutely crystallize for me that no woman or girl should be legally required to continue a pregnancy that she doesn't consent to.

I think you may have issues not shared by the majority here.

Post-mortem organ donation to a stranger is nothing like pregnancy and birth of your baby. Have you ever been pregnant, given birth? Are you a mother?

Which part of not being allowed to use someone else's body for life support do you find chilling?

You realise that you can opt out of post-mortem organ donation and refuse to let your organs that you don't even need any more after you're dead be used to save someone else's life? That's how highly we value bodily autonomy in this country... unless, apparently, the person saying "no" to use of an organ is a woman saying "no" to the use of her uterus.

But you're profoundly out of touch with reality: that you yourself owe your existence to your use of your mother's body as your life support both before and after birth.

The idea that there was a point in my mother's pregnancy after which she was compelled by the State to birth me makes me feel sick. Motherhood should be a gift freely given, not a State-mandated obligation. I would've thought that Mumsnet, of all places, would understand this.

At a certain point that balance changes. Presumably you would agree with this and not condone a mother murdering a newborn baby because she didn’t want it.

Yes, because once the child is breathing independently outside the womb, any competent adult can care for him. Prior to that point, he's using her body for life support and that's a privilege, not a right.

I think we should enable women who do not want this baby to have c sections and give up for adoption.

A c-section is much much harder on a woman's body than an intact dilation and extraction. Again, you are treating the woman as a vessel that exists for the baby's use.

Why are you on a feminist board if you think it's OK to treat a woman as a breeding vessel at any point in her pregnancy?

That is a legitimate argument and easily the best challenge to late abortion. The only sticking point is that premature delivery can cause life-long harm to the baby and this harm has to be taken into consideration. With an abortion, because the baby won't survive, that's not a concern.

I remember asking my cousin if she could be induced early to reduce the risks that a preeclamptic pregnancy with broken membranes and the "waters" gone posed to her, and she said that the doctors weren't prepared to do that unless her blood pressure went above a certain level because it would harm her baby. I think I mentioned twelve weeks stuck in hospital in a foreign (to her) country, having her blood pressure taken every two hours? Her health was being balanced against the baby's, instead of her being put first. The law requires this post 24 weeks. She was basically legally a vessel for the baby and her health not put first. I think that that's not OK.

If she is pregnant and stuck in a foreign hospital for months then that’s tough luck I’m afraid. Worse things happen to better people all the time.

The fact that you are advocating for a system where a full term baby can be aborted as an inconvenience is heinous and plays into the hands of pro-lifers who seek to portray abortion as something done by selfish, stupid women. Aborting in the circumstances you suggest would be the act of a selfish stupid woman. Fin.

@VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia you said :

No one should have the right to use someone else's body as life support. Abortion is a matter of eviction.

Of course you're free to say how you think life should be organised for the better in a ideal world.

But you're profoundly out of touch with reality: that you yourself owe your existence to your use of your mother's body as your life support both before and after birth.

I think the truth of our utter dependence is often too much for people to bear.

Lol listen to yourself! It's literally how life on earth starts. Nature bestows the right. Just like gravity bestows the rule that if you step off a tall building or cliff without a safety net you'll die. Do you argue with that too? Can a mother refuse to feed her child because it depends in her in order to eat? Keep warm? At what point can a woman say 'well I'm tired and not particularly feeling like using my physical energy and resources into keeping this child alive. It has no right to rely on me to live. I'm henceforth refusing to feed, clean or provide' I think social services and the law would have something to say about that.

I wonder. Are you pro artificial wombs? I can see an argument being made that since 'no one has the right' to use a person's body as 'life support' artificial wombs should be utilised.

Of course at the moment science hasn't managed this but in the future it could well do. Perhaps it actually would be a good move judging by it seems, the complete lack of moral or ethical care for the unborn by those with the very (amazing) power to give life.

I personally disagree with abortion but accept that society does. And imo the very least a society that does allow for it should do, is apply a layer of ethical safeguards to ensure it is not abused as in this case and serve serve appropriate sentence where it is abused.

I think it is a criminal matter. She unlawfully killed a fully formed baby and denied it the chance of life. Desperation doesn't excuse a criminal act. In any case it has been decided it was a criminal act.

I agree. Just vile.

I notice that you didn't bother to address the much thornier case that I posed, where a woman could be trapped in a foreign hospital for months.

The problem is that laws intended to stop abortions in the "urgh, how callous" cases end up stopping abortions in the harder cases as well.

VitoCorleoneOfMNMafia

That was to ^

“No one should have the right to use someone else's body as life support. Abortion is a matter of eviction.”

What a horrible, chilling statement.

😢

They have laws that claim to protect the foetus in several US states. The result is women in prison for miscarrying.

Quite. All the slogan throwers on here advocating an abortion free for all have a rather blinkered view I believe. I would like to ask if any of them are medical professionals?

your own bodily autonomy stops at the point where it violates another person’s rights

No one should have the right to use someone else's body as life support. Abortion is a matter of eviction.

TeaAndStrumpets

I was just coming on to make this point. Medics have enough distressing scenarios to deal with without heaping more onto them.”

Yes, they do. I’m not a surgeon but if I were I would refuse to carry out such late stage terminations unless the mother’s physical health was at risk or the baby had a condition that was life limiting.
I’m not religious, I agree with abortion, I agree with euthanasia under strictly controlled conditions (though personally believe that in most cases 20 weeks gestation ought to be the limit) and to me, aborting such a late stage baby is akin to murder. I really can’t understand why there is a difference in deliberately ending a life just before or just after birth at that stage.