I don't know how I feel about abortion anymore

[sirlee66]

I've always been very pro-choice. A woman's body. A woman's right to choose.

I'm currently 34 weeks pregnant with my first and now I think my thoughts are changing.

I believe the cut off is 24 weeks? There was a lovely lady on here the other day whose waters broke and she gave birth to a baby girl at 25 weeks! If a baby can survive that early... It just seems...wrong!

Maybe the cut off could be lowered. I started feeling flutters at about 15 weeks so maybe before then.

I don't know what the answer is. I still feel really strongly that ultimately, the mother should decide but I just can't get past babies surviving outside the womb at the same age as a baby that could be aborted.

Maybe it's just pregnancy hormones. I also can't stop think about the poor women who have to make that decision. It must be so awful and I just want to give them a big hug.

I guess my question is, AIBU to not really know how I feel about it?

Personally I think that rather than trying to ban abortion for women carrying children with Down’s syndrome and other life-affecting disorders it would be a lot more effective to work to set up excellent, funded practical support systems to support couples to raise children with complex needs and to provide excellent funded support for adults with complex needs. That would avoid many couples/women feeling that abortion is their only realistic choice under the circumstances. Only pro-lifers don’t tend to think about doing that on any sort of scale.

Sorry by ‘couples’ I meant ‘parents’

I definitely believe a foetus at 24 weeks has a chance of life, but I still can't see my way to inferring from that that I should forced to be pregnant.

I don't believe in a cut off for medically necessitated abortions period. I also believe that there should be a degree of discretion to a degree where women only identify pregnancies late/where pregnant women are addicted to drugs/alcohol and are unable to cease using substances while pregnant and choose to abort at a later date as a result if their addiction. But I definitely believe that elections be abortions must have a cut off for two reasons: 1. I believe that a baby is alive before birth (it's ridiculous in my eyes to suggest that a baby a hour before birth is any different to one an hour after). Obviously I think that killing babies is wrong hence the need to prevent abortions where the feotus is sufficiently developed to be considered alive. Secondly, a change in the law to extend the definition of 'alive' in a legal sense to unborn children will allow people who were knowingly harmed by their mothers in the womb can claim compensation in tort. It's repulsive that women are permitted to harm children that they intended to carry to term without repercussions. It will also allow parents who loose a child due to medical negligence a more fair redress under criminal law. If a child is intended to be carried to term then it is entitled to full legal protections.

Only pro-lifers don’t tend to think about doing that on any sort of scale

Pro-lifers generally stop giving a shit once the child has been born.

it's ridiculous in my eyes to suggest that a baby a hour before birth is any different to one an hour after

it's ridiculous to me to suggest that they aren't different.

Due to severe fertility issues I always wondered if I could have children, and struggled to imagine the concept of ever aborting a child. After two years of fertility treatment I fell pregnant with my darling daughter, and from those first two lines I've never felt love like it.

At 22 weeks she was diagnosed with severe and progressive ventriculomegaly, multiple scans and MRIs confirmed she would have no quality of life, multiple cluster seizures etc etc. We kept giving her 'one more week' desperately hoping something would change, it did but always for the worse.

Finally at 26 weeks I "aborted" my little Beth, laying on a table whilst they injected her heart and giving birth to all 38cm of her. Two separate consultants had to sign off on the decision.
Never judge anyone until you are in their situation. God how I wish I had the luxury of thinking like some of the people on here.

Her post mortem confirmed that her brain was a mass of fluid, but it's still a decision I will have to live with forever.

Secondly, a change in the law to extend the definition of 'alive' in a legal sense to unborn children will allow people who were knowingly harmed by their mothers in the womb can claim compensation in tort. It's repulsive that women are permitted to harm children that they intended to carry to term without repercussions.

But once you start classing a fetus in the womb as 'alive' you get into the inherent conflict between the mother and the fetus, because there will be circumstances in which they will conflict. How far would you go? How early is the fetus 'alive'? What kinds of 'harm' are you talking about? What about if the mother needed a medical procedure, during which the fetus was harmed? Should the child be able to make a claim against the mother at a later date for not sacrificing herself?

You're opening up such a huge can of worms with those suggestions that it's unreal.

@Sleeping, you do know Edwards syndrome is incompatible with life no?

Can't believe some of the judginess on here, actually I can, lot of Daily Mail sentiment here. LOL at the ol' 'give them up for adoption' brigade. The ol' myth there are legions of white, educated, middle-class women with clean diets just using abortion as contraception.

iamloading

Secondly, a change in the law to extend the definition of 'alive' in a legal sense to unborn children will allow people who were knowingly harmed by their mothers in the womb can claim compensation in tort. It's repulsive that women are permitted to harm children that they intended to carry to term without repercussions

It's repulsive to suggest that women be treated as incubators with less rights than a foetus. Which is the case in Ireland, where women die because an unviable foetus has more rights than they do.
You can't give a foetus any rights without taking them away from women, and that can't be allowed to happen.

Secondly, a change in the law to extend the definition of 'alive' in a legal sense to unborn children will allow people who were knowingly harmed by their mothers in the womb can claim compensation in tort.
Because claiming compensation off drug or alcohol addicted mothers would be so effective at preventing this It’s a bit like the council that wants to fine homeless people (Because they all have £1000 sitting there in their back pocket)

'Pro-lifers generally stop giving a shit once the child has been born.'

This! Pro-life, but pro cuts to services, benefits, etc.

I think it’s great that we are able to have a reasoned debate on this, and that we should be able to discuss it without shutting down the opinions of people we disagree with.

I’ve changed my mind over the years as I’ve matured and learned more. I’ve even changed opinion just in the course of reading this thread!

If we claim babies are alive and have rights before they are born, then women will have to assume they are pregnant at all times to avoid prosecution. Many women do not know they are pregnant straight away. A lot of damage can be done (such as with alcohol) in the early stages before they realise. Therefore the only way to be certain of not breaking the law would be to not drink while able to get pregnant.
.
That's before we look at doing anything else that might harm a pregnancy such as being overweight, other medications, taking part contact sports.
.
It would make abortion for any reason illegal.

I’m 100% for abortion if the baby has Down’s syndrome, or any other severe disability ( 100% of Down’s babies now aborted in Iceland )

But couldn’t abort a healthy baby past 12 weeks.

iamloading

You don’t have to. That’s why choice is a great thing, isn’t it?

@iamloading so sorry for your loss 💐 it's just horrible. I can't understand why anyone thinks they have the right to block a woman's autonomy over her own body.

I'm in Ireland where we are criminals if we have a termination. Lots of nasty propaganda being thrown about by pro lifers

It's not something that anybody decides to do lightly and never forgets.

surfer it's not 100% but very near. It's actually the one thing that I struggle with even though I am strongly pro choice.

The legal limit is far to late in pregnancy and considering the child can survive, having it aborted that late with all the gruesome details attached, should be classed as murder imo as that's a child who could survive that was to be blunt, killed

Luckily for the rest of us, your opinion means nothing to anyone but yourself.

It's not something that anybody decides to do lightly and never forgets

It is something people decide to do lightly, in that it isn't even a decision for a lot of women. We need to ditch the idea that it is always a difficult decision that has long term consequences, as for many people its just not true.

@Susan, this conflict already arises during complicated births. Doctors ask which life to prioritise and follow instructions. Sometimes they save both, sometimes the one they prioritised, sometimes neither. As for you second question you misunderstand the nature of tort. Tort law is a child of equity which focuses on achieving a fair outcome. A case where a mother had to receive medical treatment wouldn't give rise to action. This would only give rise to action in cases where pregnant women choose to do thing such as taking drugs and drinking heavily knowing that they will harm the future child and refuse a termination. The children generally end up in the care of the state at great cost and the women who are responsible for this are not held accountable (there have been a few cases where local authorities have tried to bring such claims but have been unsuccessful). A woman is and incubator if she chooses to continue with a pregnancy. If you choose to grow a future person inside you then you must respect them. Choice must always come hand in hand with responsibility.