To think that just because I'm pro-life doesn't mean I hate feminism?

[TinkerSailerSoldierSpy]

Friend and I were having a discussion, I'm 18 weeks pregnant, and it was a bit of an inconvenient surprise, considering I've started a new job just 2 months ago.I mentioned that it wasn't going to look good, me taking maternity leave after not even being there for a year, and she suggested perhaps considering there was no dad on the scene and my new job, I should terminate. I felt a bit uncomfortable but told her that I could never do that as I'm pro life and view it as killing a child. She then proceeded to stare at me like I had an extra head and ask me why in a shocked voice. I explained my reasons and views and we got into an arguement about it, the usual stuff, what about in cases of rape and if the woman's not financially able to support the child, to which I countered but is it right for a woman to get an abortion just because she wants to continue a party lifestyle? And she stormed out the house shouting that I was misogynistic and women have the right to their own bodies. Let me be clear, I certainly would never stop anyone from making their decision about an abortion, I just can't seem to get over the idea of it, it repulses me. But I wouldn't judge a woman who got one. I understand the other viewpoint but I can't agree with it myself, and in all other respects I would say i was very liberal about womans rights. When I mentioned it to other friend she said it was my views but they were quite outdated and misogynistic. Are they? I need advice, should I apologize to friend A?

no one has said they are HAPPY have they? Blimey you can be pro choice without thinking abortion is a wonderful thing.

it is there and people need it - from 4 to 40 weeks - that is the law

And turn it on its head.

For allthe pro lifers out there, will you be the one to personally refuse a raped thriteen year old a termination? Will you personally deny her? Or will you get someone else to do that?

Presumably a baby can be delivered by C-section at almost any point. IF this leaves a viable baby then so be it. The woman has exercised her right to get her body back under her control and the baby is given the chance to survive

What if the woman in question does not give her consent for a c-section? Is it legal to perform surgery on someone against their will?

No, its not legal, but should definitely be an option.

But the baby has to come out somehow, whether its alive or dead. I'm not sure the right to terminate a pregnancy can/should include the right to actively kill the foetus (that can live independently), rather than just cause its expulsion.

No, its not legal, but should definitely be an option

Interesting. Do you think that women refusing c-sections recommended by their doctors should be overruled?

I meant pregnant women who are not seeking to terminate, but have been advised by their doctors to have a c-section for medical reasons.

No hopkinette.

A woman has the right to refuse any medical procedure, even if it does mean the death of a full-term baby inside her as a side-effect.

I believe she also has the right to cause the ending of any pregnancy she does not want at any time.

I just also don't think she has the right to demand the active killing of the late-term foetus in the process of birthing it, just its expulsion.

As far as I know, late-term abortions are already just vaginal deliveries or C-sections, with the added caveat that the foetus is deliberately killed at some point in the process.

As far as I know, late-term abortions are already just vaginal deliveries or C-sections

I was unaware that abortions were ever performed by c-section. I am also surprised to learn that they involve vaginal delivery. I was under the impression that they involved D&E, ie are quite different from either c-section or vaginal delivery.

Warning, graphic description, may be upsetting to some

I believe (and I'm no expert, just from various things I've read), that D&E is performed up to about 24 weeks.

After that, its what's called "Intact dilation and extraction" or "partial-birth abortion", both of which involve delivering the majority of the baby intact down the birth canal, and then killing it just before delivery of the head (by snipping of the spinal cord with scissors or similar).

Late abortions (or stillbirths) involve vaginal delivery. In a late abortion an injection is usually given to stop the foetal heart before delivery.

Solari, I don't believe partial birth abortion happens in the UK, does it?

It does make for grim reading, doesn't it. I still think it needs to be legal, though. I just don't see how preventing any woman from having an abortion is compatible with recognising and respecting female bodily autonomy.

I honestly don't know (have spent half my life out of the UK so have a mixture of knowledge about here and elsewhere that gets all jumbled up).

I am in favour of terminating a pregnancy at any gestation, but I do think that at late-term gestations, there seems to be an added step to actively kill the foetus, not just expel it. Just to clarify my position, it is only the 'active kill' part I am having difficulty with.

Induce delivery by all means (even if it causes death). But kill a foetus because you don't want it born alive? Not so sure.

Solari: IDE is performed in the case of medical emergencies eg the foetus is not going to survive the birth, and the woman's life is also at risk (it's usuall anencephalitis of some type; the foetus has no brain stem or a major brain malformation and in some cases this means its head has grown too big for it to be delivered normally...).

As to those of you bleating for forced c-sections, go and look up Angela Carder and what happened to her. That's what you're asking for.

And let's have woman more try and making you whining, woman-hating arseholes engage your brains. Can you find one documented case of a woman requesting a post-24 week termination because she'd 'changed her mind' or it would be 'inconvenient' to continue the pregnancy? Not some bullshit anecdote of your neighbour's cousin's son's ex-girlfriend-who-was-a-slut. The tiny minority of late abortions performed for non-medical reasons are usually performed on women in dreadful circumstances eg having just discovered that their partners have been sexually abusing their other children or something.

An injection to stop the heart before removal is very different to snipping spines after birth.

The only time a late aborted foetus might be delivered alive is if it is being terminated for non-survivable abnormalities but the mother wishes to hold/interact with the foetus/baby before death.

SGB How are non-emergency late-term abortions performed?

Just to clarify again, I am in favour of a woman terminating a pregnancy at any time, or refusing any medical procedure (regardless of effect on her unborn child).

But the foetus must be delivered whatever happens (alive or dead), so am unsure why it is necessarily so that it must be killed, rather than just delivered?

And I agree, late-term abortions are very rare, and usually absolutely medically necessary.

Not after birth, during.

But even the injection to the heart, I don't understand. Why not expel the pregnancy without that step?

Yes, it really is a grey area. Personally I feel very strongly that I do not want to be a biological parent, I do not want to reproduce - even if I never have to have any involvement in a hypothetical child's life, I don't want offspring. I don't know if that can be seen as a right though.

Because an abortion means delivering a dead foetus.

Solari, is your argument that foetus should be delivered alive and then left to die?
Or delivered alive and then get medical attention to keep them alive, in whatever circumstances?

Because in all but a vanishingly small proportion of the vanishingly small number of late abortions the baby is likely to suffer if born alive. Harsh, but true.

In countires where abortion is illegal worse, much much worse, than that takes place!!!!

Poverty and lack of genuine financial support is probably a greater risk for back street abortion than not having abortion available in your country and that is why backstreet abortion co exists with mainstream abortion in the states.

Because life is full of grey areas like the extremes of relatively young children getting pregnant or even the more usual and equally important circumstances of someone just not in the emotional or physical position to have a baby I see abortion as an unpleasant but a necessary option. The whole abortion issue is murky for me I do recognise a second entity in the equation which for me has less rights than the pregnant woman but does have some rights. I have used morning after pills, I use potentially abortiofacient contraceptives but I would probably not consider abortion itself in any circumstance for myself (who can actually say with certainty) but to be honest what is the difference.

Because I recognise this other being I always shudder on these posts when the pro abortion view is taken in the extreme whereby women can use abortion as a means of contraception if they choose and have an abortion whenever in the pregnancy they want and proponents of these views claim you could not possibly be a feminist if you do not agree. I was looking for a link but I cannot find it but there was another post on abortion recently whereby the view that women using abortion as a means of contraception must be reasonable because if you support abortion you support abortion end of. I have never noticed a group of any sort whereby every member completely shares a viewpoint and feminism is no different. In fact there is not even a unified organisation to which you have to sign and agree to every single clause of the contract to join in. While I see that women have the right to an abortion I think with those rights comes a responsibility. Except in the extreme case of danger to the mother's health you either have the abortion early enough that the foetus is not a viable life itself or you have the baby and put it up for adoption if you cannot keep it yourself. Beyond this stage where you would have to actually kill a viable human being in order to fullfil your wishes is just extremist IMO. Either way a woman has to give birth it is just a question of timing that foetus is not just going to be magically be expelled from the woman's body.

Cloverer

I believe there is room for medical decision-making.

A foetus of viable age (with a decent clinical chance, not horrendous heroic measures) should be treated.

Below that, either euthanised in utero or delivered and treated palliatively (ie. pain relief).

As I posted earlier, this presents a lot of ethical dilemma and also the issue of what to do with surviving unwanted babies.
However, I do strongly believe that a) not many women would have these abortions anyway (especially with viable babies), but also b) It presenting an issue for society to resolve does not mean it shouldn't be considered.

The woman should have the right to end a pregnancy at any time. She should also have the right to refuse any medical procedure she does not want (regardless of unborn child).
But as the foetus must be delivered anyway, I don't think my ideology conflicts?

hopkinette then I assume you have been sterilised so that you will not face such a dilemma as those being discussed here.
I have already stated that I would offer early unequivocal abortions to rape victims and under 16's as well as abortion at any stage for proven severe abnormality.Yes I would be willing to be the one to explain my decision and help if I could.It is pointless to ask us to 'point to one case of late abortion for social reasons' because we would not know.Such cases are hardly going to be widely broadcast.I don't 'hate' women.I am proud to be female,proud of my daughters and grand daughters and am comfortable with my stance re abortion. Early abortions are regrettable but sometimes necessary.Late abortions are very occasionally necessary but if they are not essential they are an offense against all that being a woman means.

seeker I agree with you that if the baby is likely to suffer and/or simply die anyway or have terrible interventions needed, then heroic attempts at life should not be made.

However, I do think even a tiny percentage of a tiny percentage of babies that could survive a termination of the pregnancy, are worth considering.

I really don't understand the stance that some foetuses should have a right to life and some shouldn't, depending on who their parents are.