To think late-term abortion rules may need tightening up?

[FestiveNut]

Should people be able to abort healthy fetuses in a low risk pregnancy past 20 weeks gestation?

I read a very sad story concerning this earlier. I considered myself pro-choice in all circumstances but this thread has caused me to question that.

Should the threshold be lowered?

Why does that also extend to whether the foetus’ heart is stopped before that happens?

Because the mothers feeling about it determines its value. Apparently.

*Are the same.

Many of my patients have had children put up for adoption. It breaks their hearts that they can't be the mother they want to be and they worry how they will explain their past when an 18 year old comes looking for them. Adoption is not a viable option to termination, unless you are offering to adopt every single unwanted pregnancy yourself.

It's so sad how women are just reduced to being foetus incubators in these debates....

Adoption is not a viable option to termination, unless you are offering to adopt every single unwanted pregnancy yourself

The number of late term abortions where the foetus is viable is likely to be very small. It’s always argued that the number if women choosing this path is tiny. The number of babies available for adoption will also be very tiny.

The number of late term abortions where the foetus is viable is likely to be very small. It’s always argued that the number if women choosing this path is tiny. The number of babies available for adoption will also be very tiny.

Exactly, therefore the pro life/anti women posters on here won't mind adopting that small number of babies?

Ok thanks for your answer and opinion. I am slightly confused with your answer but I think perhaps I worded it wrong. I should have said it baby/foetus was born dead or alive (rather than the gentle term of stillborn)
I am pretty confused though.... if a woman at full term was in a waiting room about to go for a termination and she went into labour suddenly, what would happen then? Would she still be allowed to terminate?

Many of my patients have had children put up for adoption. It breaks their hearts that they can't be the mother they want to be and they worry how they will explain their past when an 18 year old comes looking for them. Adoption is not a viable option to termination, unless you are offering to adopt every single unwanted pregnancy yourself

This is unbelievable. You could kill them shortly after birth (or more correctly have someone else surgically terminate their life) and avoid any future shame that way.

This is unbelievable. You could kill them shortly after birth (or more correctly have someone else surgically terminate their life) and avoid any future shame that way.

Ahh, what a shame that you don't understand the law around "personhood". Then you would realise that your statement is ridiculous.

I am pretty confused though.... if a woman at full term was in a waiting room about to go for a termination and she went into labour suddenly, what would happen then? Would she still be allowed to terminate?

No, because of the nature of late term abortions.

Exactly, therefore the pro life/anti women posters on here won't mind adopting that small number of babies?

People do want to adopt babies.

Do you think being adopted really worse than never being alive at all?

It's so sad how women are just reduced to being foetus incubators in these debates....

Besides the crazy pro-lifer a few pages back, how are we doing this? Does discussing what a full-term termination actually involves mean that we are reducing women to walking incubators? It’s all an exercise in theory anyway, since it’s not legally available.

I know that a pithy saying is so much nicer than reality, which is rather messy with no clear answers.

if a woman at full term was in a waiting room about to go for a termination and she went into labour suddenly, what would happen then? Would she still be allowed to terminate?

Well, labour typically takes several hours, so I don't see how suddenly going into labour would change the situation.

Ok thanks fruit cider for your answer

Ahh, what a shame that you don't understand the law around "personhood". Then you would realise that your statement is ridiculous.

Ahhh, what a shame that you don't understand the "it's a completely different thing on one side of the mothers skin than the other" doesn't generally work.

It typically does Cards but not always, if the woman in question for instance had had a number of baby’s before it could be a very quick labour. But it’s very interesting to hear different view points.

Ahhh, what a shame that you don't understand the "it's a completely different thing on one side of the mothers skin than the other" doesn't generally work.

Are you saying that the law on personhood doesn't generally work?

It typically does Cards but not always, if the woman in question for instance had had a number of baby’s before it could be a very quick labour. But it’s very interesting to hear different view points.

Under current law, if the labour were quick and led to a live birth before the termination could be completed, then no, it wouldn't be possible to do a termination. But it is possible to do termination during labour in certain circumstances, which are currently very very very rare.

Are you saying that the law on personhood doesn't generally work?

Nope. Try again. But anyway, I thought laws could be wrong ? Isn't that your point ?

A termination isn't a live birth or a stillbirth. So neither of those outcomes would be a termination

To be clear, a third-trimester abortion would be something akin to stillbirth. You’d be given medication to kill the fetus, then be medically induced to expel it. It would be a multi-day hospital stay and would be, emotionally and physically, very difficult. At that point, what are we doing?

24 weeks is fine, and that cutoff hasn’t led to back alley or DIY abortions.

People do want to adopt babies. 

Just because they want to adopt, doesn't make them suitable for the task at hand.

Do you think being adopted really worse than never being alive at all

This is a bit of an abstract question, but I'll try to answer it.

Imagine you are a 20 year old woman. You were put up for adoption because your mother gave birth to you when she was in prison. Your first 60-90 days on this Earth are spent in severe pain as you are detoxed from the substances your mother was addicted to. No one wanted to adopt you because you have FAS, so you grew up being passed around foster carers. When you got older you were put in a care home.

When you were 12 years old you met a "nice man". Nice man said he was in love with you, then proceeded to sexually abuse you, drug you, and pimp you. He was violent to you and raped you on a regular basis.

When you reached 16 years old, you were turfed out of the care home and put in a hostel with more drug addicts. You became addicted to heroin. At 17 years old your first baby was removed and put up for adoption - you don't know who the father was, he was probably a punter. Every 9-12 months you continue to have babies that are put up for adoption. You are too addicted to drugs to get contraception sorted out.

Eventually your life style catches up with you and you end up in prison, 7 months pregnant with your 4th child at 20 years old. You didn't realise you were pregnant until you arrived, because you are so addicted to drugs you didn't notice. You have been sentenced to 24 months in prison for drug dealing so your baby will be removed at birth again. You have venous leg ulcers and a PE. You cannot be detoxed from methadone as you are pregnant, meaning your baby will be addicted to opiates when it is born.

Why is allowing this cycle to continue "because we can't abort babies" a good thing if a woman feels the need to have a termination at this point?

I used to work for Marie Stopes, so I'm obviously biased in my opinion, thought I would put that out there.

This thread is blowing my mind slightly.

There seem to be several posters adamant that "as late as necessary for any reason or none" is the only woman-friendly, feminist standpoint.

Yet as this belief is only held by 6% of the population (figures were cited earlier in the thread), it makes no sense to say that 94% of the population are forced birthers or hate women. Statistically, that is just not really probable.

It is not unreasonable to believe in a woman's right to choose, up to a certain cut off point. If 6% of the population also disagree with abortion altogether, then 88% of the population occupy this middle ground.

That 88% will surely include feminists and people who don't hate women. And maybe women who hate the idea of women having to carry a child they don't want to term, but hate the alternative more.

Those of us occupying this middle ground are not the extremists in this debate. The law and 88% of society are in agreement with it, after all.

So do those posters who occupy either of the extremes not actually question themselves? Both sorts are fanatics.....except the pro lifers are rightly pilloried for standing outside clinics shoving signs of dead fetuses in women's faces. Both sorts of fanatics lack nuance, and argue for either the mother or foetus to the exclusion of the other. Both want the law to reflect their absolutes. Both are chilling and come across as either naive, disturbed or that they have just stopped thinking too soon.

MsLucyLastic

Exactly.

Both sorts of fanatics lack nuance, and argue for either the mother or foetus to the exclusion of the other. Both want the law to reflect their absolutes. Both are chilling and come across as either naive, disturbed or that they have just stopped thinking too soon

I don’t think anything else needs to be said. This sums it up perfectly.