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.

That's not to say I think it's something that should be undertaken lightly mind , especially not further into the pregnancy . But I do believe was early as possible , as late as necessary and for any reason should apply .

22 weeks isn't "late term" Mybatteredchair

Yes sorry I misread . I thought she'd said second trimester when she'd actually said third .

Samw, as are 99% of my friends. Apart from one pro-lifer acquaintance

The joys of living in an echo-chamber

Indeed, Oakenbeach

Ipsos MORI polling has been consistent for some time, I believe, that most people in the UK agree with the current abortion laws, a sizable minority would want to see the limit lowered, and very tiny minority want to see them raised.

Men are more likely than women to support raising or removing the limit, which is interesting in itself.

As for the lady who made the decision to terminate her pregnancy at 38 I'm sure it wasn't an easy choice but hey come on here and slate her for her choice because you would never have made that choice

Many of us here are supportive of late-term abortions for medical reasons and know that these are almost always much-wanted babies that were incompatible with life or profoundly disabled.

Her post was interesting as many don’t seem aware of what late-term abortions actually involve; it’s easy to parrot a slogan, but they often don’t understand the full implications of it.

Samw, as are 99% of my friends. Apart from one pro-lifer acquaintance

Just want to point out here that being against full-term abortion for non-medical reasons doesn’t make one pro-life. Not sure you meant that here but thought it should be clearly stated

Men are more likely than women to support raising or removing the limit, which is interesting in itself.*
*
Exactly look at the pregnancy choices board full of " I want the baby but DP doesn't". IF it was a criminal offence to try an influence a woman's decision be it parents/partner. I would definitely feel happier about pro choice. As I know it would be about the woman decided and she would have to own her choice.

Well. I had a baby with a very serious heart defdct and he was stillborn. I didn't take the option of a late termination but understood and was grateful for the fact that it was offered. It doesn't do to assume that people who don't agree with you have never had some life changing experience that you believe would change their mind.

Here's the thing: there is no difference between a healthy baby at 37 weeks gestation in utero and a healthy baby at 37 weeks gestation who has just been born, apart from location. I would like to know whether those on this thread advocating that the former's life should be ended at the mother's will think the same about the latter's life and if not why not.

Agatha.....I am sorry you will always live with that experience. I personally think that allowing abortions for babies with any disabilities post 24 weeks is not right. I know the examples get rolled out every time but club foot, mild cleft palate, heart problems that can be corrected, chromosomal disorders where severity will not be known until birth or later,spina bifida which can even be corrected in utero.
I think there is actually too much pressure on couples to abort for any likely disability and there should be far more support to proceed with the pregnancy. It is almost as if clinicians have to give worst case scenario every time, almost as if they fear being sued for not having said how bad the complications might be. There are women who have to fight to carry their babies to term. I know a woman who had 2 babies with anencephaly but wanted to give birth and nurse them for the few days that they lived. They had to fight for this choice but they felt for them that they would cope better with the loss if they had a bit of time with their baby to say goodbye.
I think the launguage of pro abortion lobbyists has reduced foetuses to something worthless until born and it makes me feel physically sick to hear people saying that abortion should be allowed to full term for any reason.
This is not a question of choice( 'If you don't like it, don't do it' ) it is a moral issue and the rights of a woman should not trump the rights of a baby that no longer needs her to live. Why should a woman ever be allowed to dictate that her viable foetus must be born dead not alive?
When people say that it would just not happen, they are assuming all people are like them but there are all sorts of people in this world and they do not all think and function in a rational healthy way. For some people, the change of relationship status might be enough to decide they no longer want the baby. This must not be allowed and to answer original op I think limit should be lowered to 20 weeks at latest.

I don't think the limit should be changed. If something isn't broken, don't fix it.

At the moment you can more or less get an abortion on demand until you reach the limit. After that you already need a good reason. I don't believe anyone aborts much beyond that unless the child (and/or the mother) won't live anyway. I know a lady whose child died around the late 20 week mark and she shockingly had to go through labour knowing her child was dead. So presumably you'd have to do that to abort, too. How many women would put themselves through that unless there was a very good reason?

I disagree with someone being able to terminate a perfectly healthy, viable foetus at say 36 weeks for non-medical reasons

Does this actually happen? I find it very difficult to believe unless there is something very wrong with the baby and they won't survive anyway.

As for the abortions for having the "wrong" sex, that might happen. My son is now 16 but when I was pregnant with him our local hospital would not tell us the sex of the baby. I think that has changed but presume it would be easy to reintroduce such a policy if (probably girls) were being aborted so assume it's not really happening.

Just want to point out here that being against full-term abortion for non-medical reasons doesn’t make one pro-life. Not sure you meant that here but thought it should be clearly stated

As I clearly said, they are pro-life. They do not agree with abortion at any time for any reason.

Hayles88 in your opinion!

Just want to point out here that being against full-term abortion for non-medical reasons doesn’t make one pro-life. Not sure you meant that here but thought it should be clearly stated

As I clearly said, they are pro-life. They do not agree with abortion at any time for any reason.

I tend to agree that this is ultimately a pro-life position because it assumes that a fetus has a right to life that overrides the woman's right to choose. Even if this assumption of fetal right to life is contingent on the level of fetal development, it's still a pro-life position. A provisionally pro-choice position isn't truly pro-choice in my view.

However, I'd hesitate to describe it as pro-life because I want to preserve a distinction between those who want to outlaw abortion outright and those who are satisfied with the status quo. I don't suppose the middle ground would accept a characterisation of 'wishy washy'?

'wishywashy' works for me Cards

I don't suppose the middle ground would accept a characterisation of 'wishy washy'?

Haha. No. I wouldn’t... Taking a position other than the most extreme on an issue isn’t necessarily wishy washy.... i’d prefer balanced, nuanced and considered

Do you consider every view that’s not at the far end of a spectrum wishy washy?

Oooh what Oakenbeach said....."balanced, nuanced and considered".

Though I personally don't mind wishywashy either.

I just don't like unwavering, dogmatic, fundamentalism. Of any variety. I find such black and white thinking only tends to work in theory, not in the messy reality of life, with its myriad shades or grey.

The "forced birther" thing really annoys me. Unless a woman is raped, who exactly has "forced" a woman to get pregnant, carry a child and give birth?

Of course contraception fails etc and that isn't the woman's fault, but it still.doesn't mean that anyone else has "forced" a pregnancy upon her.

It seems to be a stance that views women as NOT having bodily autonomy. That a pregnancy is forced upon her against her will. She is merely a victim and a passive vessal. Which seems to be exactly what some here are arguing the woman SHOULDN'T be seen as. So why used terms like "forced birth", this reducing her to a passive status, yourselves?

Unless a woman is raped, who exactly has "forced" a woman to get pregnant, carry a child and give birth?

Forced birth is not the same as forced pregnancy though.

There were posters on the first part of the thread advocating a complete ban on abortion.

I wouldn’t necessarily choose the term forced birth, but I do believe most people who describe themselves as “pro-life” are in fact only “pro-birth”.

*doesn't mean

Jacques Hammer, that makes more sense. I would agree that removing all abortion would lead to a situation where all women had to give birth.

But where abortion is available up to a legal limit, then I cannot see a woman having to carry to term past that point as a "forced birth". The only thing making her give birth is biology and nature. Not intervening to terminate the foetus is not the same as forcing birth. Nature did that all by itself.

But where abortion is available up to a legal limit, then I cannot see a woman having to carry to term past that point as a "forced birth"

I suppose in the situation (although rare) of being unaware of pregnancy would be a situation that needs covering.

I see that Jaques, but it isn't other people who are forcing the pregnancy on the woman. The refusal to end a pregnancy isn't the same as "forcing" birth up on her. Her own pregnancy has done that. That is NOT to say that it is the woman's own "fault", it isn't, it is simply that society has decided via laws that nature should run its course past a certain point.

"Forced birth" implies a level of hatred to the woman that simply isn't there. It reduces the woman to being a passive victim of her pregnancy, and suggests she is a powerless vessel that lacks autonomy and had nothing to do with becoming pregnant in the first place. Unless she was raped, this is disempowering women by patronising them, surely?

A woman can already request to end a pregnancy after 37 weeks. It's an elective induction. She can also request a cesarean.

What the fundamentalists on here seem to be doggedly insisting on is that she should also be allowed to decide that the foetus is deliberately killed beforehand. Which is insane.

Yes,end the pregnancy if she wants.
No, can't insist child is born dead.

I don't think the people are pro choice at all.

They're either pro life nutters trying to make pro choice people look evil or they're mras advocating for more time to pressure women into aborting children they don't want to pay for.

Or both.

TL:DR - how can those who advocate abortion to term for any reason or none, as a means of a woman maintaining bodily autonomy, argue for it using language which fundamentally assumes a lack of autonomy?

Nightwitch - I agree.

It reduces the woman to being a passive victim of her pregnancy, and suggests she is a powerless vessel that lacks autonomy and had nothing to do with becoming pregnant in the first place. Unless she was raped, this is disempowering women by patronising them, surely?

I don’t take it to mean that. I take it to mean that any woman should be permitted to end a pregnancy at her choice. Without that choice they’re being forced to the natural alternative conclusion, which is birth.