To want autonomy over my body.

[thebodydoestricks]

Aibu here. I am 50 but apparently still fertile.

I have 4 children already and do not want any more.

According to some posters if I fell pregnant but hadn't used at least 2 methods of contraception I should be denied the abortion I would most definatly want.

I would have to go before a panel of judges in a court to plead my case. They would judge whether I should have an abortion or not.

Of course if there was a back log of cases then I would have to wait and if it reached 24 weeks it would be too late anyway.

I would be forced to give birth.

Aibu to be absolutely stunned at this posters view in Britain 2014?

Without reading every post here, I have been fortunate enough not to have had to have an abortion, because I was not particularly fertile, but there were a few times that I had scares. One time I had been drinking way too much alcohol in what could have been the first month of development of the embryo and another time I had taken antibiotics, yet another time I was between jobs and didn't have a regular place to live.

Those are just my situations that all turned out to be false alarms, but there are so many different reasons why someone would realise that they could not give their child the best start in life or they would be unable to look after a child the way they feel is right.

I personally think anyone who wants to stand in the way of a woman who chooses an abortion should hand to pay/clothe/feed/educate that child.

They'd soon change there mind then. I've noticed a lot of people have an opinion on something being immoral so long as it doesn't effect them.

These would also be the same people bashing the mother once baby was born, she was single and claiming benefits. Worlds gone mad!

No I don't think she's daft to want/need to further her career, good on her. But generally I think the BB programme and contestants are daft and tedious.

Like TOWIE etc, don't blame them doing it and good on them but can't imagine spending an interesting night in their company.

Myrtle I fully agree. The anti abortion lobby here scared me and the American ones are just petrifying.

maid - in answer to your earlier question about whether it would in some way be easier to deliver a baby after it had died - I don't think it is, usually. As the mw very gently explained to me after my son had died & i was in labour, I was more likely to need an assisted delivery (live babies are involved in the birth process; a dead body has no muscle tone to 'help' with the process iyswim) and if I were to need that assistance that would be forceps not ventouse, again due to the lack of muscle tone. It does apparently vary depending on how long the baby has been dead for, but in my case it was a few hours max - I've given birth several times and whilst this wasn't a difficult labour, it was obvious to me that it was physically different and that I had to 'do' more myself to get him out. Sorry if that's a bit grim to talk about, but you did seem to be asking.

thebody - earlier you said "I don't believe a foetus has rights over and above the mothers wishes. To me it is not a sentient human being until it is born." I can understand the first part (and obviously - to me at least - the choice about whether a pregnancy should continue should be the woman's), but what would you say to someone in my situation about how my son was - apparently - not a sentient being as he died a few hours before he was born (at term)? One of the most upsetting things I've had to deal with since he died is a (thankfully small) number of people implying that I shouldn't be grieving for my dead son, and neither should my other dcs - as if in some way our loss isn't really that of a full child, or sibling, as he never lived outside my uterus. (I'm not accusing you of being one of those people btw, it's obvious from the compassion you've shown thebaby that you're not. It's just that your comments raise this question again for me & it's not one I could ask anyone irl, it's too upsetting).
I understand the view that to restrict the choice of whether a pregnancy continues at some arbitrary point is to restrict women's bodily autonomy, and I get the slippery slope that could lead to & it scares me too. But I don't understand how anyone could genuinely think a baby at the stage of development mine was, should have its' heart stopped prior to delivery because the woman doesn't wish to be pregnant, when she could stop being pregnant anyway & the baby live?

thebaby - so very sorry to hear about your situation, my heart goes out to you

I don't think she will get on bb anyway, they are saying she was never on the shortlist. She does have other offers though, so she says.

I hope the negative publicity doesn't turn out to be a problem for her.

We didn't know if ds would be born alive, the consultant did explain that at 20 weeks the chances were he wouldnt survive the induction and labour. Which he didn't.

fisherman Thank you for sharing.

YANBU, the body :) Good work!

I haven't read all this thread, as I was on the last one and it ate three days of my life. I have extreme views: I support abortion on demand to full term. My reasons for this are well thought out (imo, obv,) and do not include feeling happy about the idea some women might choose to abort at 37 weeks for their own reasons. The thought of third trimester abortion makes me squirm, a lot. But I don't believe I have the right to stop another woman doing something to her own body that she believes essential to her well-being, however uncomfortable I feel about it.

The moral/legal dispute is about whether a foetus is a person in her/his own right before delivery. I say no. The definition of "alive" has now been blurred by technological advances, to the point it's not a worthwhile test of personhood. Whether a pre-term baby can survive without its mother past 20+ weeks (currently) depends on so many conditions, it's now impossible to set a reliable limit.

But a foetus is not a legal person. It can't own property or inherit; it can't be held liable. You can leave your estate to a one-hour-old baby, but not one hour before it's born. If we decide a foetus is a legal person, this could would lead to bizarre cases where adults might be able to sue them for damages, theft, even manslaughter. Things like this used to happen back when foetuses were considered people! It caused a lot of problems with inheritance law.

fisherman I am so so desperately sorry for your dreadful loss and I sincerely have no desire to upset you and do so apologise if I did.

This is obviously a very difficult debate.

Please let me tell you that of course you have fully every right to mourn and grieve for your much wanted and loved baby and I can obviously see why you were upset by my words.

I suppose for me the difference is once a baby is born it is a separate being to you able to breathe and grow without the mother.

I fully support a woman's autonomy to control her body and I would be frankly amazed if somehow lots of women decided to terminate at a late stage for frivolous reasons but the fact is autonomy means all or nothing.

I in no way meant to say that a baby dying in the womb or in labour is not mourned, loved or cherished as much as a born baby to parents that want it.

Much love, and imput from posters like you and baby bring real life to this debate and keep us all in mind of what is at stake here.

My thoughts are with you xx

Garlic yes I totally agree with you.

It's a very emotive subject but a vitally important one to women everywhere like baby

It's also so important to hear posts from moonmins and fishermen too.

They serve to show us all how difficult are the choices for women when they become pregnant.

My first view is though listen to the woman. It's her body and her pregnancy.

I do wonder at the forced birth camp frothing about how there will be loads of women waking up one morning at 39 weeks and 5 days and thinking, 'stuff this for a game of soliders, I'm going to get this foetus aborted today, for shits and giggles'. It shows what an incredibly low opinion they have of women, and of themselves (given that they are women, or at least say that they are). I very much doubt that, should women's bodily autonomy be enshrined in law, anyone will hold a street party for the first on demand post 24 week abortion.

fisherman I am so sorry you have had the experience where people have told you you shouldn't be mourning your lost son. Of course he was a 'real child' and a full sibling to your other DCs. The major difference between your experience and the experience of a woman who wants an abortion is that you wanted your born asleep son, you planned for and discussed and did all the things people who are having much anticipated children do. A woman who has decided on abortion wants the foetus out of her, as soon as possible, she isn't going to start knitting for it or planning names for it, she just wants it gone. Society cannot make a woman want a baby she wants aborted, in the same way as no one can make a woman who has had a child born asleep feel like she shouldn't mourn. I do hope that makes some sense to you.

As an example.

I have had a late miscarriage at 20 weeks and an abortion at 19 weeks. The miscarriage came first, she was a girl, I wanted her with every fibre of my being, her death was traumatic for me. I then went on to have DC. My ExH, who we had escaped from and against whom we had a court order, brok into my flat one night and raped me. I wasn't using contraception, because I wasn't having sex, and I became pregnant. I told no one that I was pregnant until I was in a huge amount of pain one night and went to A&E as it was feared that it was ectopic, while there, I had an ultrasound and I knew, from that moment, that I could not go through with that pregnancy. I actually hated the parasite within me, it had to go. I had an abortion, which I had to pay for, because my GP refused to refer me, a week later.

I too think that there is a world of difference between an abortion and a baby born sleeping.

So sorry for your lost

(only up to page 16, bear with me if this has been discussed already but need to write and post before i forget)

Thus a woman could decide not to 'abort' but to 'deliver' at 25 weeks and let the fetus take its chance.

Are you suggesting that the woman give birth at 25 weeks, and then just leave the baby to die...? Because, surely, if the baby was born alive (as in, the only outcome sought was the end of pregnancy, not the death of the baby) , then the medical staff would do all they could to keep the baby alive. So the fetus would not be left 'to take a chance' - ANY baby, regardless of gestation age, needs some intervention to keep it alive, whether it's an incubator or just bottles of milk.

Capt

There are some tragic stories on these threads.

It's difficult, my son was a much wanted baby and very much part of our family. I think about him every day nearly 3 years later and he's buried with my dad.

I still find it difficult that if it had happened 4 weeks later he might have lived or if they had put the cervical stitch in the day I was admitted at 2 cm dilated instead of 24 hours later at 6 cm he might still be with us

And fisherman sorry I thought I had written a post to you.

capt beautifully posted and agree with every line.

moonmins too. Heartbreaking posts.

visualise yes a baby born is treated as per the consultants advice.

I am pro choice.

I read the last thread, but never got to post (y'all filled it up) .

I salute you who are explaining the pro choice reasons.

And to those of you who have shared your stories much love and , especially the baby, to be posting about this so calmly and eloquently while you are going through this ordeal is amazing... You are amazing.

thebody you didn't upset me, although the topic does iyswim. I could see where you were coming from and it obviously wasn't a place without compassion - hence me feeling able to post and ask the question. It's actually something I've been wondering about since having those sorts of responses from people, but it's not one that can be discussed easily especially irl and I'm glad to be able to - I didn't feel able to start an 'aibu to grieve my dead son but think people should be able to abort' thread, but I guess that's the question it comes down to. You're right, too that these personal stories are necessary to keep these questions close to the reality, which is that it's a difficult topic & women in these situations have to make sometimes very difficult decisions. Which is why it needs to be their decision rather than someone for whom it's theoretical. Even those who have experienced one situation don't know what they would decide in another, slightly different situation.

Capt thank you for sharing your experience that does make sense to me. I'm so sorry btw and I hope you are in a much better - and safer - situation now.

Garlic your post really helped - I guess it's a bit like someone miscarrying at 23 weeks and 6 days - emotionally it's not going to be different to someone whose baby is stillborn at 24 weeks, but there has to be a legal cutoff. That makes sense to me too.
I am left with the question though, that there is a legal distinction, in that a stillborn child is legally recorded as a person, with a name (it's something that brought me comfort in fact when dealing with those reactions - that at least the law did indeed recognise him as a person, if not in the same way as my other children). But if he's recognised as such, how could someone countenance deliberately preventing such a baby's survival? (Obviously, as many have said it would be very rare that anyone would want to).

Visualise I think the point was that someone could choose to not be pg but that it didn't necessarily mean the foetus had to die (the take its chances was saying the odds of survival aren't great that's all)

Moomins those what ifs and should've beens are awful aren't they

Yes - a woman aborting at full term does not want that child (for whatever reason, medical/social etc) - she would have to give birth regardless.
Being full term, she would be likely to give birth soon anyway, whether that baby lived or died. So it wouldn't be the pregnancy that she wanted to end, but the foetus' life - she would not want the fetus to become a child and live.

(I am no where near as clever as you lot, and am struggling to keep up with this, so be gentle with me!).

Quite frankly I think the abortion-no-matter-what crowd have a very low opinion of women, that

A) they can't take responsibility for the possible ramifications of having sex

B) they can't use contraception

C) they can't take pregnancy tests once a month when sexually active and organize an early-term abortion (before 12 weeks) if that is what they choose.

Every right has it's limits and IMO the limit is when the fetus has completed it's physical development (around 12-14 weeks if I remember correctly). There are very few cases where you could NOT reasonably organize a termination on this time.

Life-threatening health issues for either mother or baby would be the obvious exceptions. Regarding rape and abuse I believe we need to create a culture where it both happens less AND is safe for women to come forward, pregnant or not. Simply actioning late-term abortions no questions asked will not help or heal women in abusive situations.

And a pp said that those forced-birthers (gasp - does that mean I can call pro-abortioners baby killers? Cos we all know the issue is that simple [hmmm] ) - are anti-benefits/wouldn't step up to the plate themselves. I'm pro-welfare, pro-social help, pro-sex and would double my chosen family size if it meant saving babies. I know many people who hold the same beliefs and would do the same.

So restrict abortion to 12 weeks and hope rape just goes away.

Sounds like another great plan.

and WTF @ women and girls having to perform pregnancy tests every month for their entire reproductive years while sexually active, do you know how much pregnancy tests cost?

NO contraception is 100% perfect.

God that post has made me angry.

Women and girls having to perform pregnancy tests every month is another "females should consider themselves potentially pregnant at all times throughout most of their adult lives" thing isn't it.

And slightly bizarre - many women and girls have things called periods which I understand for some years have been used by said females as an often reliable indicator of whether they might be pregnant. But NO in that instance women's bodies suddenly aren't good enough and ALL females must submit to monthly testing to check whether they are pregnant or not.

Bloody hell.

To add to Lovesardines, no one is pro abortion as no one is being forced to have one