to be completely confused - pro/anti choice

[ScarletFever]

I have ALWAYS considered myself pro-choice

and then this - remember that person Josie who is on the daily mail a lot, with her nhs boob job etc who has made a career of annoying people... who said

"i would have aborted my baby if it meant i could go on Big Brother"

Right - so I was like "oh you evil cow" etc......, but then it was pointed out somewhere, if you are pro-choice, then what difference does it mean if her reason is crap?

So, how do i get my head around it being 'ok to abort a disabled child, or if you are not ready for children, or even it is the wrong time (re career) to have a child' but not ok to abort a child for a 'celebrity' reason??

I'm in the abortion because a woman decides it's the right choice for her camp. No other restriction, proviso or time limit other than her uncoerced choice.

Regarding repeat abortions, again, I have no issue with them. It doesn't always suggest a woman in control if her life and reproductive options, but we know that there will always be a subset of people who, for one reason or another, live chaotic lives. Forced pregnancy isn't going to help those women or their children and is a pointlessly spiteful impulse.

It's such an awful topic to contemplate and I consider myself very lucky that it's something that I've never had to face IRL. I used to be very anti-abortion but as I've seen others agonizing over the decision and living with the consequences I've come to realize that others can't be denied a choice. It's such a broad spectrum from repeated "social"abortions used in place of contraception to poor woman being raped or abused or facing the probability of having a severely disabled child. For the sake of the second category I support the pro-choice lobby.

*giving the baby up to parents who will love them is a better choice than having an abortion.

Better for who? confused*

I meant better in the general sense (i.e. like we generally consider it 'better' if fewer people die in road accidents).

But I don't think you could argue that its not better for the baby. (I know several people who were adopted as newborns. None of them would rather have been killed pre-birth).

I'm also in favour of termination to term. There was a good debate about this on here a few weeks ago about it (or at least, a good debate until it got hijacked). Someone linked to a very interesting publication from BPAS showing the reasons why the 30 or so women they saw one year who asked for a post-20w termination had requested one. The vast majority seemed to be either young girls who had just hoped that if they ignored the pregnancy it would go away, or women in troubled relationships.

There is a myth that loads women would chose a late term termination purely because they have changed their mind. (Though even if they have, who should judge?) The statistics from Canada, which I can't access right now - I will try and find that thread - which allows terminations to term show there is hardly any take-up for late-term terminations, particularly for late-term non-medical terminations. And late-term terminations for medical reasons are allowed in the UK.

I think, at core, abortion is either legal or illegal, and any constraint on it, such as the UK's current 24w limit, is at heart not right. You can either have a termination at any point, or you can't.

I do understand why people are uncomfortable with the notion of terminating a foetus which has an extremely good chance of surviving outside of the womb. But feelings shouldn't really come into this too much.

(I know several people who were adopted as newborns. None of them would rather have been killed pre-birth).
What a stupid, offensive thing to say.

Also, while I agree that adoption is in many ways a better choice in many situations, it ignores that fact that many women terminate because of the pregnancy, not just the baby.

Seriously MrsDeVere, in favour of abortion up to term? How can it be right to end the life of a baby who would survive if born at that gestational stage because the mother decides that she doesn't want it to be born? Surly there has to be some limit?

But I don't think you could argue that its not better for the baby

Really? So not existing, never hurting, never wondering why your parents gave you up, never having to experience any pain of any kind isnt better than going through it all? You would prefer to put a child through it than not and say that was better than never having any awareness of it at all? Odd logic you have there.

I would not be able to abort a baby for non-medical reasons after 24 weeks. However, I totally support the right of any woman to do it, for whatever reason. I can't claim to be pro-choice if I'm going to say "yes it's your choice UNLESS....".

You either support the right of women to choose to have an abortion, or you support the right of the state to have control of women's bodies.

Surly there has to be some limit

Yes- term.

This is something I struggled with before I had children, but the experience of pregnancy and through reading stuff on the feminist boards here and elsewhere made me reassess.

I am pro choice, as early as possible, as late as necessary. Ultimately however unpalatable I find late term abortion for example I believe women are entitled to bodily autonomy.

You either think life is sacrosanct from conception or you don't, I can't stand those with arbitrary cut offs or who think abortion is ok in some circumstances ans not others. What gives them the right to judge?

I also think it's wrong that currently you can abort after 24 wks if there is a problem with the fetus but not otherwise. This is making a value judgement on the worth of a disabled fetus. I believe this is wrong.

I may not have an abortion myself, thankfully I have not been in the position to have to consider it (though I was put under pressure to terminate with my first preg at 19). That preg resulted in ds1 now 15. An abortion wasn't the right choice for me but it may be for others.

I just don't see that I have any right to decide or judge what another woman does with her baby. Ultimately once you start giving a fetus rights you are leading down a very slippery slope.

I just can't get my head around abortion at term, seriously to end the life of a baby in the womb who would survive if taken out of the women's body, just the mechanics of what that procedure would be like would be horrendous. Surly at some point the personhood of that infant needs to be taken into account too.

*Those babies are very much wanted.

So why arent they being adopted? There are thousands of children in the UK in foster or care homes waiting to be adopted. Do you not realise this?*

The waiting list for parents who want to adopt babies is huge (to the point where potential parents are regularly told not to bother because they simply wont ever be offered one). People pay thousands of pounds to adopt from abroad because there are so few babies for adoption in the UK. Do you not realise this?

The vast majority of children in foster or care homes are not waiting for adoption (because they have parents with problems that social services are hoping to reunite them with).

If women are aborting babies because they think they will end up in care if they don't want them than that is a VERY distorted picture. Babies given up for adoption are placed very quickly.

Surly at some point the personhood of that infant needs to be taken into account too.

That point is birth.

mrsd oh I do absolutely agree that it's either right or it isn't and that a disabled life shouldn't be valued less than a non disabled life when it comes to the termination cut-off.

ILovePud I think that what MRSD is saying is that given that term abortions are permitted for babies with disabilities there shouldn't be any distinction between disabled and non disabled and that if a disabled baby can be considered able to be terminated to term then this should apply equally to all babies. A sentiment which I don't disagree with in its logic although I am personally of the view that the cut-off should be brought into line for disabled babies.

I really think there is middle ground puddlejumper, I think of myself as prochoice but not unlimited choice, there's lots of areas of life where that is true I think. This is a very emotive and difficult issue of competing rights and uneasy compromises rather than absolutes.

Pud, it's fine not to get your head around. I can admit I have difficulties imagining what it might be like. But I still think it should be there, as a choice. The personhood of the infant occurs when it is born and existing separately from the mother. Yes, at any point from around 24w that situation may occur by natural labour, a CS or induction and the baby has a chance of surviving. But until labour begins and that baby is born, the mother still has the choice.

WannaBe, x posted yes I completely see the point about this discrepancy around disability and I agree.

The waiting list for parents who want to adopt babies is huge (to the point where potential parents are regularly told not to bother because they simply wont ever be offered one). People pay thousands of pounds to adopt from abroad because there are so few babies for adoption in the UK. Do you not realise this?

So you dont think the older children that are being overlooked couldnt be the babies that were unwanted but for whatever reason didnt get adopted at birth? You dont think those in limbo waiting to hear if they are going back home or not could be the result of unwanted pregnancies?

Really? So not existing, never hurting, never wondering why your parents gave you up, never having to experience any pain of any kind isnt better than going through it all? You would prefer to put a child through it than not and say that was better than never having any awareness of it at all? Odd logic you have there.

If I killed you right now you would 'never hurt again', but I don't think you would be for it. I think most people would choose life, even if it came with 'wondering why your parents gave you up'.

Basically you seem to believe that life as a child who is adopted is somehow worse that never living at all. I don't. I think a child living and being adopted, is preferable to abortion.