Abortion limits lowered part 2

[CosmicCanary]

I messed up the last one.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/3458517-To-think-late-term-abortion-rules-may-need-tightening-up

The limits should not be lowered in my view.
I am pro choice to the point where it is the womans choice as long as her body is required.

I am generally anti-abortion but I can understand that, for some women, there can sometimes be a genuine need for it.

Currently the limit is pretty much in line with the age of viability, although a baby born at 24 weeks is very likely to have some big struggles in their future. Unless this changes I don’t think the limit needs adjusting.

Bringing the gestation age down would also make things difficult for women who discover problems which need investigating at 20 weeks.

I’m inclined to agree with the “as early as possible, as late as necessary” mantra that is trotted out on threads like this, but it’s not really consistent with the view of the pro-choice fundamentalists that abortion should be available on demand, to term, for any reason. The mantra should more accurately be “whenever she wants, whether necessary or not”.

And pro-choice fundamentalists is really what they are - no nuance, no wider appreciation of rights or ethics, just a worship of “god” of unfettered choice, a god that is beyond reproach and cannot be questioned let alone criticised.

And pro-choice fundamentalists is really what they are - no nuance, no wider appreciation of rights or ethics, just a worship of “god” of unfettered choice, a god that is beyond reproach and cannot be questioned let alone criticised

Please do not clutter the debate with the metaphors of religion. I've yet to encounter an argument from a pro-choice endorser who claims divine authority for their views. Nor have I encountered any who say their views cannot be questioned, they just might not accept the views put forward, i.e. I see what you say but it's utter bollocks don't agree with it.

There is extreme ignorance here about what a third-trimester abortion entails. People are on here pretending that it’s just the same as a first- or second-trimester abortion.

It is like stillbirth. A woman must still go through labor, and deliver vaginally or surgically. There is simply no point in allowing a woman to have a termination due to this reality.

It is physically and emotionally difficult, requires multiple days in hospital and may actually be as risky as childbirth.

There is absolutely no place on earth that allows third-trimester abortions for non-medical reasons except China, and as I stated, in China, it’s still pretty hard to find someone who would actually do it.

I swear, you are playing right into the hands of the pro-life brigade when you say ridiculous things like terminations should be available up to the point they exit the birth canal. I don’t think you want to live with the consequences of that; just like the pro-life brigade don’t really want to live with the consequences of denying all abortions to women and suffering the consequences of back-alley abortions and DIY botch jobs.

There was, in fact, a very sad case in India where a 10-year-old child was raped by her uncle and became pregnant. She, naturally, had no idea what pregnancy was and they didn’t find out until the 8th month. They wanted an abortion and, since it was 8 months, they had to go to court to seek it.

In the end, a panel of doctors said it would be riskier than childbirth (c-section, in her case). I believe the baby was given up for adoption.

At the time, I thought it very awful she didn’t get a termination, but I had no idea what a third-trimester abortion really was, and how she’s basically have to give birth, as this was basically a premature delivery.

I believe another child rape victim was able to get an abortion at 22 weeks (the cutoff in India is 20 weeks), and I feel that was the correct decision.

In other words, it’s more complicated than a pithy slogan suggests.

I also find it patronising that my pro-choice stance is being rubbished by extremists. It’s bad enough to try to convince pro-lifers that first-trimester abortions are better than the alternatives without the extremists coming in and demanding that women have the right to terminate at any moment for any reason (I’ve seen some defend sex-selective abortions too!)

It just makes the rest of us pro-choice advocates look bad

Pinapple do you really think we do not know what a 3rd tri abortion would entail?

Are you so arrogant you believe that we are too thick to grasp the procedure despite the face that many of us are mothers and have given birth.

As for being an extremist thats a tad dramatic. Am I not allowed to believe its a womans choice and voice it? Why is that extreme? I have made no demands on anyone.

People are on here pretending that it’s just the same as a first- or second-trimester abortion

No-one has said this.

I swear, you are playing right into the hands of the pro-life brigade when you say ridiculous things like terminations should be available up to the point they exit the birth canal. I don’t think you want to live with the consequences of that; just like the pro-life brigade don’t really want to live with the consequences of denying all abortions to women and suffering the consequences of back-alley abortions and DIY botch jobs

You catastrophise the views of the pro-choice, whose views include full information and freedom in a systematic way at all stages for women so as to avoid the frankly silly outcome you envisage. About the anti-choice...not so much, as I've yet see any of them give a tuppenny fuck about child welfare/benefits, never seen any campaigning at all by anti-choice adherents on strengthening support for women and babies in need.

Because, er...the woman can choose to abort OR give birth and keep OR give birth and give up for adoption.

Exactly. Because adoption isn't a suitable alternative to a termination unless it is the woman's choice.

As PP have explained with examples, giving birth can increase a woman's vulnerability to abuse and trauma. Giving up the baby for adoption doesn't solve that problem, it just adds new problems. Again, PP have given examples of these problems.

It's hardly 'fundamentalism' to argue a position with real examples of the reasons we're making these arguments. Yes, I think that women's bodily autonomy is paramount.

Clearly some people disagree, and that disagreement centres on different perceptions of the status of the woman, rather than the status of the fetus (except for those who argue against late termination for medical reasons). This is why, for me, the best position as a feminist is pro-choice at any point in pregnancy.

Please do not clutter the debate with the metaphors of religion.

Why not? The pro-choice position espoused by some on this thread is dogmatic and fundamentalist in nature, as it seeks to reduce complex ethical issues into simplistic mantras and unquestionable ‘truths’.

Why not? The pro-choice position espoused by some on this thread is dogmatic and fundamentalist in nature, as it seeks to reduce complex ethical issues into simplistic mantras and unquestionable ‘truths’

That is not what you said in your previous post where you used the words "god" and "worshipped", which are not the same as "dogmatic" or "fundamentalist". Back-pedalling much?

There is extreme ignorance here about what a third-trimester abortion entails.

I know exactly what a third trimester termination of pregnancy entails. However, I do not refer to it as 'giving birth anyway' because it isn't. Neither is it 'like a stillbirth'. In several very important respects it is significantly different from giving birth, including stillbirth. This is why I refer to it as a late termination -because that's what it is.

About the anti-choice...not so much, as I've yet see any of them give a tuppenny fuck about child welfare/benefits, never seen any campaigning at all by anti-choice adherents on strengthening support for women and babies in need.

Then you need to open your eyes, mind and ears a little.

Plenty of the less militant pro-life supporters work in precisely this way. We aren’t all out harassing poor women who are probably in a great deal of distress outside clinics....

One point a lot of you seem to be missing is that a late abortion doesn't just magic the baby away. You still have to be induced and give birth to get the baby out, so there's no choosing the woman's body over the baby irl.

If you are pregnant and decide you don't want the baby very late on in the pregnancy (and there's no medical issue making the baby's life non viable), then surely the right answer would be to have the baby and immediately put it up for adoption?

A late termination is a very traumatic event for a woman to go through even if it is through choice. Arguably more traumatic than going to term, being induced (which is what happens in a late termination anyway) and someone taking a living baby away instead of a dead one. A lot of you are over simplifying a very complex ethical issue.

PineapplePower

This x 100

Back-pedalling much?

Not really... the term ‘god’ is readily used in the sense of the ‘god of money’ etc. rather than a super-human being.

Pineapple said it a lot better!!

• really... the term ‘god’ is readily used in the sense of the ‘god of money’ etc. rather than a super-human being.

But that's how it gets its meaning, by being assigned the attributes of a deity, by taking on all the connotations of religion. That's how metaphors work.

I'm not at all sure about this issue. As far as I know we do not have the right to get healthy limbs amputated so not convinced "bodily autonomy" decides it. The medical profession are ethically compelled to do no harm so given that the choice is woman gives birth to dead foetus or woman gives birth to live baby, I'm not sure they'd professionally be able to abort a viable pregnancy at late term unless it also reduced the medical risk for the mother. I also don't think "but no woman would choose it unless desperate and most not even then" is a good enough argument. The law doesn't exist for the people who wouldn't choose to do something however desperate. Hardly any women would be desperate enough to murder a newborn either but tragically some are and that has to be illegal. Which I'm not saying is a comparable wrong, just that "noone would choose that" falls down as a logical argument I think.

There's also a parallel with the right to die debate in that one problem with making late termination a choice is it also brings the possibility of people being somehow pressured into that choice e.g. in an abusive relationship.

It's a really difficult one and I'm not decided but inclined towards the current law being the best we can manage at the moment. For me the condition of being pregnant felt a bit like being a long way underwater - by dint of where you currently are, however you got there, there's not a free choice any more, you have to swim back up one way or other.

As for being an extremist thats a tad dramatic. Am I not allowed to believe its a womans choice and voice it? Why is that extreme? I have made no demands on anyone.

It’s extreme because it takes ‘choice’ to its ultimate extreme, and frankly horrific, conclusion..... the opposite end of the spectrum to the extreme pro-lifer who calls those who take a MAP a murderer.

Are you so arrogant you believe that we are too thick to grasp the procedure despite the face that many of us are mothers and have given birth

All you have to do is wade through the last thread to see how some described it; they were under the very wrong impression that it could be done quickly in a similar manner to those in the first trimester.

And I do believe that late-term abortions are very necessary for women who have medical issues or with a non-viable fetus. These late-term abortions are sad outcomes for mothers of very much-wanted children; and the vast majority are done to reduce harm and suffering.

Medical terminations of a healthy full-term fetus is abhorred in most places on earth; I don’t see why it’s a problem to have generous cutoff dates for termination. The UK and USA have the most generous at 24 weeks; in mainland Europe, it’s usually just 12 weeks.

I am fine with the law as it stands.

My daughter was born breathing independently, fully viable and ready to go home at 37 weeks. I cannot agree that it would be right to terminate at that stage on grounds of bodily autonomy. As others have said, at that point termination would involve labour or a section anyway so the "forced to give birth" argument makes no sense to me. I agree that no one should be forced to parent and would support closed adoptions (ie no way of tracing birth parent) for that reason.

It’s the fact that it’s ‘simple’ that makes it extreme... Most beliefs are tempered by ethical and practical dilemmas. Beliefs become extreme when they don’t allow for such things, and dogma reigns, often being articulated in pithy sound bites to give it credence and to deploy as a shield in the place of well-reasoned argument.

“as early as possible, as late as necessary” is no more a full argument than “an eye for an eye...”
Is to support the death penalty, yet it’s used as such by otherwise articulate posters.

Interesting discussion.

I have participated in a 38 week feticide for a previously undiagnosed foetal abnormality. It was a perfectly legal procedure and was beyond horrific.

As the law currently stands it was a legal procedure.

It took days to find enough doctors to perform the feticide (this is what the particular procedure we did is called) as we needed 2. The procedure (potassium into the heart until asystole is confirmed) did not work the first time. We had to do it.

The baby was relatively healthy save for one issue that although absolutely major, was not life threatening. If I could have taken the baby home to raise myself I would have done. I really mean it. I cannot forget that baby. A colleague turned to me outside the room and said 'tell me there is something else wrong with this baby' I said no, there is nothing else. It's just that one thing.

I have a decade of experience in this type of work - it has been 3 years since I delivered a live baby. I feel very strongly that women need choices and are not treated as incubators.

We mustn't forget that for every women exercising her legal rights there are people who must be found to perform these procedures. I don't mean to place emotional burden on women exercising their legal right.

I mean practically we have to find people - it is hard. There are now entire areas of the country with no obstetricians who will participate.

I am one of the people who will participate in this type of care. I have never been asked to participate in such a procedure again - so rare - but if I was I would exercise my right to decline. I cannot and will not be party to that again - it was too great a burden for me.

*we had to do it twice. (Re feticide)

@HarperIsBazaar me too.