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 When I mentioned it to other friend she said it was my views but they were quite outdated and misogynistic.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

I understand the academic argument for abortion to birth but seriously can't understand anyone agreeing with it in real life.

there have been a few cases over the last couple of years where women / girls have been kept in basements for years (Fritzl, Kampusch, the three in Ohio, jaycee lee Dugard) and have delivered babies.

If any one of them had been rescues/escaped and been 30 weeks pregnant would you deny her an abortion if she asked for it?

I know it is a hypothetical question but just wondering what you think.

"I feel like over and over again people are trying to make out that having any sort of qualms about late abortion is exactly the same as trying to ban all abortion, and that there is a stubborn refusal to recognise the reality of what it means."

I don't deny what it means, it's a terribly sad thing to kill a viable foetus. For me it's less sad though, than a world that says that women are so morally vacuous and stupid that they would abort what is to all intents a baby, without extremely good cause. To imply they would is to buy into the discourse of women as moral idiots. I suppose there is a chance that there is someone somewhere might be that morally incompetent, but so far no one has introduced me to her and basing law on a non-existent boogie-woman of the patriarchy's imagination, is a non-starter.

And see how the debate keeps moving back to these non-existent frivolous late abortions. Why would that be then?

And also where has anyone said or implied that people who have qualms about late abortions want to ban all abortions? I haven't seen that.

Most people have qualms about late abortions. I have qualms about it, but those qualms don't affect my support for a legal structure which assumes that women are moral agents just as men are.

Everybody has qualms about late abortion. One of the many reasons for campaigning for fast, good, free, non judgemental easily available advice and treatment for all women regardless of age and economic status is to reduce the need for the already very small number of late abortions.

The problem is that the anti abortion campaigners focus on this tiny %, and play on the qualms to try to chip away at our rights. And we must not allow this to happen.

But most people in this thread who are uncomfortable with late abortion are not opposed to early abortion. I am inclined to agree with mathanxiety's mum bad cases make bad law. Up until this generation there was no such thing as safe late abortion and so all women in all contexts literally had to deal with the situations they were in. now we have minimised these numbers using safe early term abortions and as virtually one agrees the vast majority of women make use of it then when circumstances but nothing can legislate for every event. for me it is a bit like the atomic bomb just because science has developed it does not mean it is good to use it.

*When circumstances require.

YY to everything that Basil and Seeker just said. The late abortion topic is just a red herring that people use to sensationalise the topic and attempt to make pro-choicers look heartless, etc. Not to mention reinforcing the misogynist notion that, given any leeway, women will be immoral, vacuous dimwits who would happily dispose of a viable foetus if a good party invite comes through the post!

If people are genuine about being 'pro-life', then they need to actual live in real life, focus on the actually living, see that there will always be a need for abortions, however tragic they think that is, and campaign for easier and quicker availability of early-as-possible abortions. But of course they won't ever support that because the misogyny I described above is at the heart of all their beliefs, whether they lie to themselves about it or not.

But several of us on this thread, including myself, support legal abortion on demand up to 24ish weeks. I don't see why we can't talk through how we think late abortion should be handled legally.

I don't think 'very few women would do it' is a good reason to make late abortion legal. It seems like a non-sequitur to me in that context.

And saying 'women wouldn't do it because they're not moral imbeciles' is odd because a) some women are morally deficient (they are human and some humans do appear to be morally deficient, for whatever reason) and b) it's assuming that late abortion is a moral choice. Now, I happen to agree with that assumption, but it's making an implicit distinction with early abortion. Most pro-choicers (including me) would never condemn a woman for choosing early abortion, whatever her reasons.

It's not a question of thinking women are moral imbeciles if they choose late abortions.

It's a question of who has control over a woman's body?

Her, or the state and/ or the medical profession?

If it's her, then the assumption has got to be that she never loses the right to have control over her own body (even if she's 39 weeks pregnant) unless she has lost control of her reason.

The current assumption is that at some stage in pregnancy, women lose control of their reason so the state has to take that control for them.

How often does that happen in the UK per year, megsmouse, and what were the medical conditions relating to the foetus?

When was the last time a woman asked for an abortion during late term for the spurious reasons I've given Megmouse?

The only one I've ever heard of actually happening was because of anencephaly which was detected very late.

Yep, me too.

Bet she didn't go to a party the week after, either.

Where are all the party girls? The real ones I mean, not the patriarchal boogie-women?

Are 3rd trimester abortions not illegal in the uk except in very rare circumstances though just a question I am not british

Me too. Heartbreaking. Even more heartbreaking if she had and to carry that baby to term.

In her case. Some people would choose to carry a baby with a condition not compatible with life to term. That's what being pro- choice means.

Neunund, the legal limit for terminations in the UK is 24 weeks, although only a small proportion are carried out this late, the majority take place before 12 weeks.

It is possible to have a termination after this date, and right up to term, for medical reasons. This will be if the foetus has serious abnormalities or there is a significant risk to the mother's health.

Thanks for the clarification yawn4 the day I started wondering when posters were talking about not knowing women who had late term abortions for social reasons I had presumed they were not allowed. given they are illegal this means the statistics for them just do not exist. While i agree it is very likely few women would want them in the uk if the law was changed they do exist around the world. for example I know in India there is definitely an issue with late term abortions for female babies I remember reading an article on it over there even though they are illegal.

The number of abortions carried out after 24 weeks is about 130 a year in the UK. I think I saw that cited in a Guardian article about privacy concerns of patients who have undergone the procedure if the reasons were to be disclosed.

The article uses an example of abortion if the foetus has no chance of survival and not abortion in the case of danger to the woman's health. Even so, many conditions involving the foetus are not incompatible with life for the foetus outside the womb. A legal case involving cleft lip is mentioned as potentially involving a wide range of related abnormalities but whether any of those abnormalities were present in the case of the foetus aborted is not disclosed. At present it is not possible to say what exactly the reasons for late term abortions may be but to assume it is only done for sound medical reasons is to be perhaps over-optimistic.

Medical reasons can include significant risk to the mother's health but that is a very woolly term and though rare, abortion right up to term is de facto legal in the UK. It involves foeticide and delivery of a dead baby per the guidelines of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists.

Guardian article.

So around 140 abortions post 24 weeks. The vast majority of them will be just after 24 weeks. The overwhelming majority will be for devastating not compatible with life conditions.

Why are we even talking about this? Why aren't we talking about th real issues?

There is no way you can assume the vast majority take place just after 24 weeks.

Huffington Post article on 'issues'.

Torygraph article on statistics -- unreliability thereof.

Even if I can't assume that,(andni think i can, actually) I can certainly assume that the vast majority are for conditions incompatible with life.

So we can't possibly make any sort of policy decisions based on these abortions, rather than on the overwhelming majority.

You can't assume anything until you have statistics.

Abortion policy is encapsulated in the current law, which allows late term abortion for reasons that may or may not be medically sound. Attitudes to late term abortions are reflected in the lack of statistics.