Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

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

812 replies

TinkerSailerSoldierSpy · 18/05/2013 12:38

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 When I mentioned it to other friend she said it was my views but they were quite outdated and misogynistic.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?

OP posts:
xylem8 · 23/05/2013 11:31

Can I ask a question
Do you consider a 10 year old to have morally more right to life than a 3 year old?
Do you consider a 3 year old has morally more right to life than a newborn?
Why then does a foetus have less right to life than anyone else?

hopkinette · 23/05/2013 11:55

Why then does a foetus have less right to life than anyone else?

It doesn't. It has exactly the same rights to life with exactly the same limitations. No born person has the right to use another person's body to keep them alive. So nor does any unborn person.

Jan49 · 23/05/2013 12:48

Do you consider a 10 year old to have morally more right to life than a 3 year old?
Do you consider a 3 year old has morally more right to life than a newborn?
Why then does a foetus have less right to life than anyone else?

I think a child of any age has as much right to life as any other child. But a foetus is something within a woman's body and if she doesn't want it then I think she has every right to choose to abort. She shouldn't be forced to go through pregnancy just because she has become pregnant.

HorryIsUpduffed · 23/05/2013 13:00

Legally a foetus doesn't exist until the instant of its birth.

I can't see any other logical cut-off between personhood and not.

neunundneunzigluftballons · 23/05/2013 13:08

The "frivolous late abortion" trope is always brought out by the "forced birthers" because it is so troubling for everyone, regardless of point of view. Or it would be, if it happened.

Why bother having a view/opinion on it if it just does not happen, there is simply no need but yet it makes the abortion debate even more divisive than it needs to be. In addition using language like forced birthers makes absolutely no sense in this context in the 3rd trimester when women will have to give birth abortion or not.

Unless, of course, you hate women and consider them important only as incubators, their whole lives worthless apart from their function as breeding stock...

That is right anyone who does not share your view is a women hater. Hhhhhmmmmmm.

Once you've established that women aren't morally competent to make decisions about their own bodies, the rest is academic - you can argue about gestation periods, viability, what time limit to apply - but basically, you're accepting the essential premise of the time limits - that women can't be trusted to decide, because we don't have the moral capacity to make a reasonable decision.

But that view is only possible to have if you do not recognise any rights for the foetus at any stage of gestation which is perfectly fine and clearly your view. However that view is not shared by many others who feel the mother?s and the baby?s rights need to be balanced. For me always the women are the superior life but the babies rights grow alongside the pregnancy and once viability is reached they have to be considered. Women are perfectly capable of making decisions for themselves and they can who would have thought it even make decisions for giant corporate conglomerates but that does not mean that they have the right to kill a full term baby.

The rights women have in relation to abortion are only possible because of advancements in medical science and even then abortion is not without risk so it that sense they are in that sense contrived rights so time limits are reasonable.

mathanxiety · 23/05/2013 13:12

Once you've established that women aren't morally competent to make decisions about their own bodies, the rest is academic - you can argue about gestation periods, viability, what time limit to apply - but basically, you're accepting the essential premise of the time limits - that women can't be trusted to decide, because we don't have the moral capacity to make a reasonable decision.

And once you have established that women are morally competent, etc.,, then abortion right up to the time of natural birth is the only logical conclusion to arrive at.

BasilBabyEater · 23/05/2013 13:25

Exactly Matha.

"that does not mean that they have the right to kill a full term baby. "

It does mean that they have the right to expell anyone - a fully grown man or a full term baby - from their body if they don't want that person in their body.

And again, it would never happen anyway. Never in the whole course of recorded history have women expelled full term babies from their bodies, without very good reason, such as medical need. So you don't need to restrict women's personhood in order to avoid such an eventuality.

fromparistoberlin · 23/05/2013 13:36

"I don't know one woman who's had an abortion to "continue a party lifestyle". How ridiculous.

ahem, I had one then went 2 days later to do a ski season

women DO have abortions for this reason, or reasons close to it

I spent much of the ski season depressed, however, I had one as at that stage I wanted to have my 20 something life and not a baby

fromparistoberlin · 23/05/2013 13:37

OP I think yanbu

its a fucking free country, and you are entitled to your views

and yes she might be offended, but telling a 18 week pg woman to consider abortion is pretty tactless IMO!!!!

Feminist5 · 23/05/2013 13:57

I cannot stand it when people say oh don't abort, just give the baby up for abortion.

2 things-

  1. It isn't just about not being ready for parenthood even though that is a huge part of it. No woman should have to go through pregnancy and childbirth unless she absolutely wants to. There are numerous health risks associated as well as the small but very real risk of death. Nobody can be forced to take that risk against her will. Women are not incubators for babies that other couples want to adopt.
  1. Not every child who is given up for adoption actually gets adopted. There are many, many children waiting in orphanages for their happy ending which never comes.

Lastly, everyone is different. I would find it much easier emotionally to abort a 10 weeks old fetus than to give up a baby that I had nurtured and given birth to.

Feminist5 · 23/05/2013 13:59

And FFS, there is no abortion at 39 weeks. It would be an induction which would result in a live baby anyway.

Feminist5 · 23/05/2013 14:02

I'd like to add that when we talk about a pregnant woman's rights in such absolute terms, we must remember also to extend them to women who want to continue with the pregnancy. They shouldn't be denied home births, epidurals, cesareans or inductions on the grounds that the doctor doesn't believe it to be safe for the baby or her. Once we've established that maternal rights are absolute, then that's that.

I am extreme in that I don't even support the idea of doctors being able to limit a woman's right to have an early induction or elective cesarean. Her body, her pregnancy and her choice.

BasilBabyEater · 23/05/2013 14:04

Fromparistoberlin - were you more than 30 weeks pregnant at the time?

eccentrica · 23/05/2013 14:12

feminist5 that is indeed extreme and foolish. Unless you can perform a caesarean on yourself you have no right to insist that a medical professional performs a procedure they believe to be dangerous and potentially permanently damaging.

My God, I've been a feminist and a "pro choicer" my entire life and there is some ludicrous guff being spouted on this thread.

fromparistoberlin · 23/05/2013 14:14

noooo! around 6 weeks

eccentrica · 23/05/2013 14:19

What is so special about being pregnant that you think it magically gives you permission to tell everyone in the world how to do their job? Women's rights does not mean the right to be a colossally arrogant dictator who knows better than anyone else about anything. Jesus Christ. And I'm sure you wouldn't complain if those medical procedures had bad outcomes. MY MATERNAL RIGHTS ARE ABSOLUTE dies, haemorrhaging but still the best

neunundneunzigluftballons · 23/05/2013 14:19

I am extreme in that I don't even support the idea of doctors being able to limit a woman's right to have an early induction or elective cesarean. Her body, her pregnancy and her choice.

Should a doctor not have any rights? They are humans too.

neunundneunzigluftballons · 23/05/2013 14:23

btw fromparistoberlin the OP was outed by MSHQ as an under bridge dwelling sort are we allowed to trollhunt after the op has been outed?. We have just continued on discussing the abortion topic without him/her.

BasilBabyEater · 23/05/2013 14:24

Exactly fromparistoberlin.

At 6 weeks pregnant, wanting to continue your party lifestyle is an absolutely legitimate reason to want to have an abortion.

The usual argument of the pro-forced-pregnancy lobby (you're right whoever said that's more accurate than pro-forced birth) is that all these awful women would suddenly decide at 36 weeks (having neglected to bother to get a termination in all that time) that they actually didn't want to have this baby after all and would rush out and get abortions if we left the decision to them.

It's just never going to happen, is it.

VisualiseAHorse · 23/05/2013 14:48

Whereas having a baby need not necessarily be in any way a medical procedure having an abortion is one and as such medics may not be happy to carry out such a risky procedure.

Doesn't mean that pregnancy isn't risky. Who's to know whether continuing with the pregnancy would end up being more risky than having an abortion?

BasilBabyEater · 23/05/2013 15:04

Pregnancy's an incredibly risky affair. The short, medium and long term effects are very rarely discussed because it's taken for granted that women risking their health (and lives) in pregnancy is no big deal.

VisualiseAHorse · 23/05/2013 15:05

And FFS, there is no abortion at 39 weeks. It would be an induction which would result in a live baby anyway.

I cannot find much info on this... So a baby 'aborted at 40 weeks' is actually born alive and then killed by the doctor?

The only thing I can find is this : www.operationrescue.org/about-abortion/late-term-abortion/
which states that the baby is given a fatal injection. Not sure if this is used in the UK though.

LineRunner · 23/05/2013 15:08

I had a termination at 5 weeks because I didn't want to be pregnant.

Why I didn't want to be pregnant should not be the State's business.

eccentrica · 23/05/2013 15:10

Operation Rescue are a notorious pro life org in the USA who use really tasteful tactics like driving round trucks with pics of aborted foetuses juxtaposed with images from Nazi death camps. I wouldn't trust anything they say.

eccentrica · 23/05/2013 15:18

feminist5 Seriously, what is so different about pregnancy? You think doctors should just be there to obey your command, why limit this to medical procedures relating to pregnancy? All medical procedures should be available on demand, right? after all, what is medical school and years of experience for, if it's not to be ordered around by someone who simply by being female knows more than they could ever hope to?

Swipe left for the next trending thread