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?

@ElonMask I am personally against commercial surrogacy but the surrogate is making a choice about her body. You are really clutching at straws now

@GunpowderGelatine I don't know what medics think I suppose it individual. I'm assuming pro choice is abortion on demand like how my friend was using it 4 within a year? Because it's HER body and she's irresponsible. Some people like my friend have no boundaries they hit self destruct button. In my view the medics made the right choice.

@MsLucyLastic sorry what are people suggesting that's repulsive?

Yeah a woman who self destructs is the perfect candidate for being a mother

FruitCider

Errrrr ok

Worse things than being forced to endure a pregnancy and birth of a baby that you can't keep, with the baby growing up into an adult knowing they were born to a mother in prison who could simply not taking gear? I can't think of much worse actually. It can't get much worse for the mother or the foetus at this point.

So them never bring born in the first place would be worse  so its actually better they were not aborted ?

Now you are projecting your own emotions on to the women in that position, who are devastated at the thought of having to give birth and no prospects of keeping the baby. For the mother who wants a termination one of the worst things you can do to them is use them as an incubator because feelings.

@GunpowderGelatine - abortion to term for non-medical reasons. 94% of the population are utterly against this. 6% of whom are rabid pro-lifers.

The 6% of women who advocate for abortion to term to be available for non-medical reasons, really mess it up for the rest of us. There is no appetite for their standpoint in the UK. It feeds into the need to keep abortion as a legal matter rather than it being on demand up to the cut off point.

Terminating a healthy foetus past the point of viability, for non-medical reasons, is viewed as unacceptable to 94% of us. Yet those of us who are pro choice up to the legal limit, and actually think it should be on demand up to the legal limits, are being called forced-birthers, woman haters, that we view women as incubators, and are Kelly Clever Clogs.

Fortunately, they will never get their way, not least because the rest of society is repulsed by what they suggest.

Typical.

Nobody IS suggesting the abortion limit is raised to full term!
What is being said is that it should not be lowered. Yet you create a strawman simply to back up your view that women should not have atounomy.

If you think that people who agree with on demand abortions up to 24 weeks are the ones being called woman haters etc then you haven't read the thread properly at all, or the vile views of some anti-choicers.

I won't apologise for being in the 6%. I believe that women should be allowed full choice, so to terminate for any reason at any point. It doesn't mean it sits comfortably with me if, for example, a woman terminated at 37 weeks because she got a stretch mark and didn't want anymore. I would judge, most people probably would - But the whole principle of pro-choice, to me, is that no one else has involvement in another woman's choice.

But as you say there is no appetite for relaxed laws around the 24 week limit - not because of the 94%, but because so few women demand it. The hypothetical stretch mark woman mentioned above simply doesn't exist. There are circumstances in which foetuses can be terminated past 24 weeks, and last year this was decriminalised for doctors, which I think is great. And again these are so rare and so closely managed by medics that it doesn't constitute or demand a law change.

@CosmicCanary - actually, there have been several extremely prolific posters on this thread arguing that abortion to term for any reason or none SHOULD be available.

If you have read the full thread, you would know this.

And on that note, I am definitely out. It is bad enough trying to discuss things with those who have read the thread and the way it has moved on from the original question. Let alone arguing with someone who calls others names and is incorrect about what previous posters have stated should be the case.

From you, I am now taking Kelly Clever Clogs as a compliment. Have a lovely xmas.

And I personally don't "demand" that abortion limits are raised - but my pro choice beliefs mean I have no issue or objection with a woman seeking an abortion for any reason at any point

@MrsLucyFantastic. The law is quite clear on the points you raise, as are the guidelines from the RCOG. Once a baby is born alive, it is entitled to the health care and other protections that any other baby is. Which is why when foetuses are terminated for medical reasons, that steps are taken to ensure that the foetus is deceased before it is delivered.

I believe in 'as early as possible, as late as necessary' in regards to abortion, although that doesn't make me an extremist. The number of second trimester abortions is tiny, most commonly situations of DV, teenagers who were raped at a party and put their heads in the sand about being pregnant, chaotic lifestyles etc. Women do live in extreme life situations, and their health care choices should be between themselves and their doctor.

The number of second trimester abortions could be reduced further by more effective contraception, easier access to the MAP, easier access to abortion health care etc.

This is an old article from Red Pepper, but well worth a read www.redpepper.org.uk/24-reasons-for-24-weeks/

And I apologise if smelly Clever Clogs offended you. But it's a deeply anti-choice (I won't call them pro life as they're not, they're pro-birth) argument to say "what if I kill a baby fresh out the womb - haha I've got you now pro-choice murderers!" As if ya anything but an argument that at best is dense, at worst is entirely illogical

Kelly not smelly! I'm sure you smell lovely

I have been on the thread from the start MsLucy and I have not seen 1 poster say the limit should be raised.

I am fully pro choice. However I am not starting a movement to get the limit increased. Niether is any other poster.
You just want to pretend we are as it serves your purpose as painting us as baby killers.

Disgusting and underhand behaviour on your part.

So these people that believe abortion should be at any time up to birth what if the child's overdue? Still the same? The problem I have is I see a child no differently 9 months in the stomach to a couple of hours later in a ward. The argument against abortion, "fine don't have one" is just not acceptable. If we something happens in the world we feel is not right we are entitled to voice this.

Voice it New that is your right however do not remove the choices of others within the legal relms.

So these people that believe abortion should be at any time up to birth what if the child's overdue? Still the same?

Overdue or not do you understand the word BIRTH? If they say up to term they mean up to birth.

The argument against abortion, "fine don't have one" is just not acceptable.

Not to you. Thankfully the law doesn't legislate for your views, which are truly that women should not be allowed to have an abortion full stop.

No, I'm not actively campaigning for the law to be changed in this country, there are bigger fish to fry right now in terms of erosions of women's rights. I do however donate money to women on waves to enable more women to access abortion should they want one.

and I have not seen 1 poster say the limit should be raised.

I did. I think it should be raised to term.

what if the child's overdue?

If the pregnancy goes beyond the expected date of delivery, then yes, I think a termination should still be available to the pregnant woman. I think very few women would request a termination at 40+ weeks but it should be available by law.

Exactly. Not a single pro choice person has suggested raising the limit to term. ‘As late as necessary’ is still within the scope of the law. The pro-choicers on this thread were responding to why the limit should not be LOWERED.
However a small minority has taken that to mean that pro-choicers are happy to advocate termination upto due date for non medical reasons. Which is frankly bonkers. And any woman who contemplated that is possibly in the grip of a severe crisis that neither abortion/childbirth will resolve.

So to summarise broadly the pro choice position on this thread:

1. We don’t want the limit lowered.
2. There is no link between viability and the abortion limit. A simple google search will explain this.
3. We support the current legislation as it stands.
4. We have pointed out that v v v few abortions take place close to the 24 week mark anyway.
5. Finally non medical abortions after 24 weeks are not available. And even those that are carried out are a v v small number.

Can we please stop the misinformed frothing at the mouth?

Well I stand corrected. One person has suggested it. I think they might be in a minority among pro choicers though.

As if ya anything but an argument that at best is dense, at worst is entirely illogical

It might seem illogical to you but it is central to the morality of it all, which as straight forward as you try to make it is nuanced. The reality is that people are uncomfortable with the procedure because there is (what most people.consider) a fully formed baby in there that has to be killed. You have no qualms about killing it in the womb if the mother decides thats what she wants because you believe that it has no intrinsic value unless the mother confers it unconsciously by her feelings about it. Anyone who has been pregnant will know it is both a part of you and yet separate, it will take needs from your body. That's just the way it works, I'm sorry you think it's unfair. Most people would personally be deeply uncomfortable about performing a late term abortion which is partly why it's not reasonable to expect it is provided universally.

I'd raise it to term too.

I've been on MN for over 10 years, have been posting on threads like this the whole time, and what stands out is that very few people talk to me, or ask me anything.
Then I realise, why would they, when the truth would get in the way of a good story.

I had a termination at 23+5.

@CosmicCanary Ok I'm not trying to be controversial but with right up to birth why should woman not be allowed to change their mind after birth, due to disability or domestic violence or she simply does want to be a mother? What are the ethics the second the cord is cut, so woman can try out motherhood? Or once the water is broken? Or the head is coming out? Pro Choice up to birth for a healthy child I imagine they would struggle getting anyone to perform it. Would any of the pro choice people feel comfortable doing this procedure or even being in the same room?

So these people that believe abortion should be at any time up to birth what if the child's overdue? Still the same?

Well yes because being overdue does not make you a living being independent of another human. That's the key - while a woman has a foetus, baby, whatever you want to call it, inside her dependent of her we think it should be her choice until the baby is not.

The problem I have is I see a child no differently 9 months in the stomach to a couple of hours later in a ward.

Good for you. Then don't you have an abortion.

The argument against abortion, "fine don't have one" is just not acceptable.

Why not? What have other women's choices, women you don't know, got to do with you?

Frankly I'm amazed you deign to have a friend who's had 3 abortions.

If we something happens in the world we feel is not right we are entitled to voice this.

Actually you're not entitled to voice anything. Sometimes opinions are best kept to yourself. And you certainly don't have a right to dictate how things that affect literally one other person, that person not being you, Should be.