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.

Original poster

To be frustrated that it's impossible to have a discussion on abortion ethics....

999 replies

coconuttella · 06/09/2017 19:54

On one side there's those who believe an embryo has fully human rights from conception, and on the other those who believe the foetus has no rights at all until birth.

Both sides seem to put forward their position forcefully and dogmatically as though they're stating the obvious, and anyone who thinks the ethics surrounding it may be a more complex is shouted down, especially by some on the pro-chioice side who seem to view anyone who doesn't agree with their stance as a misogynistic slave of the patriarchy.

Personally, I'm not in either camp and find the ethical questions complex, with this being brought home the other evening when I was reading that Incas didn't regard babies and toddler as having human status until the age of 3-4 (where they had a ceremony to mark this rite of passage) and no longer totally dependent on their mothers and past the most perilous time wrt child mortality. It made me question again my thoughts on when we should a human should acquire rights, and frustrated me that any discussion on this immediately degenerates into a slanging match.

OP posts:
GreatFuckability · 07/09/2017 15:32

I would not donate organs as I believe that you are not dead when they are removed and that no aneasthia is used during the removal process

erm....what?

NiteFlights · 07/09/2017 15:33

It is a logical outcome of the argument that the woman's rights outweigh those of the foetus. I'm afraid I find it hard to believe that there are many physically and mentally healthy women who, after carrying a healthy foetus for 39 weeks, in a country where abortion is legal and accessible, suddenly decide they want an abortion, just because.

If that happens, and the woman won't agree to give the baby up for adoption, then yes, it would be a necessary evil in my view.

You are of course entitled to disagree and i understand why.

Original poster
coconuttella · 07/09/2017 15:39

sigh but 39 week abortions of healthy foetuses DOESN'T HAPPEN!

If it doesn't happen then why get so passionate about protecting the right to do so! It makes absolutely no sense!

OP posts:
Original poster
coconuttella · 07/09/2017 15:40

Sorry, there is of course no right to abort a 39 week healthy foetus.... what I meant was "get so passionate about stating there should be a right to do so!".

OP posts:
KatherinaMinola · 07/09/2017 15:47

sigh but 39 week abortions of healthy foetuses DOESN'T HAPPEN!

It does - very occasionally - happen, though it isn't legal here. Here's one case from a few years back: www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/12/appeal-jail-term-woman-aborted-baby-40-weeks

It is a logical outcome of the argument that the woman's rights outweigh those of the foetus.

Well, no, it isn't. It's a perfectly reasonable opinion to hold, but it isn't "a logical outcome of the argument".

AssassinatedBeauty · 07/09/2017 15:48

@coconuttella do you think an embryo/foetus/baby in utero has partial or full human rights? Would you explain what your reasoning is? Can you explain why a woman's rights to bodily autonomy is secondary to that of the embryo/foetus/baby in utero, if that's what your position is?

GreatFuckability · 07/09/2017 15:50

because, in my opinion, if I say I am pro-choice that means I'm pro-choice regardless of the reason for the abortion or when. It's not my job to tell other women what to do with their own body, so if she feels an abortion is right for her, then it is. Regardless of if its one woman in the history of the world, then that is her choice. I don't see what doesn't make sense about that.

GreatFuckability · 07/09/2017 15:51

katherine I meant legally, in a hospital. What that woman did was extremely sad, but really not what we are talking about here.

itsbetterthanabox · 07/09/2017 15:52

Some women Kill themselves or attempt at home abortion if they can't access them late term. Surely it's better in those instances?

NiteFlights · 07/09/2017 15:57

Katherine I think it is. The woman's right to bodily autonomy outweighs the foetus's rights. Therefore the conclusion must be that if, in the unlikely circumstances I mentioned, she wanted an abortion she should have one.

I am taking the argument to its extreme partly because that's what always gets mentioned in these debates. What if, at 39 weeks, etc.

BertieBotts · 07/09/2017 15:57

"why get so passionate about protecting the right to do so"

Because it's not about 39 week abortions. If you ban 39 week abortions, which most would agree seems pretty reasonable, then you aren't only banning 39 week abortions, that would be pointless. It has to have a lower cut off point which means that somebody other than the pregnant woman gets to decide what that cut off point is, that's what people are saying is unacceptable.

Legislation isn't the only way that policy makers can encourage or discourage certain behaviours. If we relied on legislation for everything we'd live in a totalitarian state. For most things it's considered more humane to use a combination of education and support systems in order to encourage people to behave in a way that the policy makers would like. Legislation is a blunt tool and while sometimes necessary, I don't think it has a place in abortion access.

KatherinaMinola · 07/09/2017 16:02

GreatFuckability, I know it's not legal here, but if you do want pro-choice all the way (abortion on demand) then that it is what will happen occasionally - because occasionally some women will want to terminate a full term foetus.

And I totally get your position on it - that you accept that in a small number of cases that might happen. For some people that isn't an acceptable level of societal "risk", though. And that's why I think as a society we probably won't go the fully abortion-on-demand route but will stick with the level of compromise we have now (or something like it).

Katherine I think it is. The woman's right to bodily autonomy outweighs the foetus's rights.

NiteFlights, I understand that you think it does, but it's not true to say that that's the only logical conclusion, which is what you were saying earlier. There is a range of possible ethical opinions, as we've seen on this thread.

blueberrypie0112 · 07/09/2017 16:03

Katerina, It sounds like she delivered and killed her baby. This happened a lot where mothers tried to get rid of their baby after birth. A 13 years old is going to jail for the same thing : https://www.wsls.com/news/virginia/roanoke/roanoke-teen-to-serve-time-after-newborn-found-in-storage-container (personally, I think she was raped too and didn't get the help she needed, they should gave her alternative to jail)

NiteFlights · 07/09/2017 16:09

Katherina what alternative would you suggest if a woman isn't to continue with a pregnancy and give birth against her will? Genuine question.

It's

NiteFlights · 07/09/2017 16:11

Didn't mean the 'it's' there.

And I do realise that at that late stage she would have to physically give birth, in the sense that the foetus can't just be 'got rid of'.

Mittens1969 · 07/09/2017 16:11

@BertieBotts, I agree. I've known a lot of Christians who are very sincerely very opposed to abortion but by their actions they are making them more likely to happen! They don't want their daughters to have sex education in schools and they don't want them to have access to contraception.

I get why they feel that way but it's just so misguided. If they want to reduce the number of abortions it's the only way to achieve it.

GreatFuckability · 07/09/2017 16:18

Yes, Katherina I agree that society doesnt see it the same as I do. and I accept that.

lylasmam2012 · 07/09/2017 16:18

Haven't read the full thread, but I'm going to cover all bases here. I'm Irish and in the middle of fighting tooth and nail for abortion rights here, and also for the right to consent and refuse consent during pregnancy and labour (in Ireland, the right to consent to medical procedures it removed during pregnancy and you can be brought to the high court if you try to refuse consent)

Look, an abortion at 39 weeks is just ending the pregnancy by giving birth. I've had an induction at 42 weeks and 39 + 6 weeks, I ended my pregnancies, but both those children are sitting in creche waiting for me.

All this focus on late term abortions which make up less than 1% of all abortions makes no sense.

92% of abortions take place before 13 weeks. 54% of people seeking abortions are already parents, they know what they are doing, they've been through it before. They are looking at their lives, their live born children and making the choice they feel is right for their family.

Abortion cannot be used as contraception.

Abortion on demand isn't a think, it's not a subscription service. Abortion on request/as needed as with any other medical procedure.

If you have no issue with abortions in cases of rape/incest/ffa then it isn't abortion you have a problem with, it's how the person got pregnant.

A child should not be used as a punishment for having sex. Every child should be a wanted child, every parent a parent by choice.

And for the argument that some people can't have kids - FUCK OFF, I am not a vessel, I am not an incubator, I don't owe anyone a baby AUNT LYDIA

BarbarianMum · 07/09/2017 16:20

When you get to 32+ weeks there is little difference between the risks associated with termination and the risks associated with early delivery.

Blink66 · 07/09/2017 16:20

Batteriesallgones

That's not true - many countries have a variation on "duty to rescue". In general within common law systems, parents do have a duty to put their life in danger to reduce their child, and to any stranger at all where they endanger life because of their choices. I believe in the US might also extend the duty to husbands and wives.

Although in civil law systems people do not have to endanger their own life, it is a criminal offence not to help - even if it puts you at a slightly higher risk (by staying around for instance).

KatherinaMinola · 07/09/2017 16:20

I really don't know, Nite. I don't have the answers. A PP suggested that someone could decide to be induced (for a live birth) if she didn't want to be pregnant any more - which carries its own complications and ethical issues, of course.

As I said above, I feel somewhere in the middle of this debate - I am not anti-abortion, but I do feel that there is a point at which the foetus becomes a person, and my feeling is that at some point (and I am not sure where that point is) that person should have rights. And that becomes complicated too.

BarbarianMum · 07/09/2017 16:25

It makes perfect sense in a discussion where you have people telling you that you either have to support the "no abortion" or "as early as possible, as late as necessary" positions. I apparently fall into the "pro life" camp because I support all but some of these " less than 1%" of abortions.

lylasmam2012 · 07/09/2017 16:52

I just don't understand why it's a concern though when they hardly ever happen

lylasmam2012 · 07/09/2017 17:14

And when they do happen it is for extreme circumstances

Original poster
coconuttella · 07/09/2017 17:34

I just don't understand why it's a concern though when they hardly ever happen

Well, why the insistence from pro-choice absolutists that it should be allowed!

OP posts: