Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to think "no woman aborts a baby lightly" is untrue and unhelpful?

548 replies

ZoeCM · 11/09/2021 15:32

I've noticed this phrase being used a lot following the news about Texas. I'm pro-choice, and I don't think it helps our cause.

There are women who have abortions lightly. It's not a myth started by the Daily Mail. I don't even think it's necessarily even that rare.

There are women who actively want a baby in the near future, are in stable relationships, aren't even using contraception, but still decide to abort because the timing isn't 100% perfect: they don't want to cancel their holiday abroad, or give birth until the extension on their house is finished. Trust me, it happens. Does anyone really think those women agonised over whether the holiday/extension was more important than the baby, before painfully including that abortion was the only option? Of course not. And that's fine. Women shouldn't have to ask if their reasons for aborting are "good enough".

Then there are the women who are on their fifth or sixth abortion - workers at abortion clinics will confirm that this does happen. It seems unlikely that those women agonised over their decisions either, because presumably they would have put some long-term contraception in place to stop it happening again. I expect most of them come from pretty traumatic backgrounds, but that doesn't mean their decision to abort isn't made perfectly casually.

This phrase is a gift for pro-lifers, because it's so easily disproved: many of them will have stories about women they know who've had abortions without a second thought. A better argument would simply be that it doesn't matter why a woman wants an abortion: she should be allowed one because it's her body and her choice.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
7
ThePriceIsNotRight · 12/09/2021 15:16

While some women may welcome a child following an unwanted pregnancy, the fact remains that countless in the same situation do not. Look at the illegal abortion rate worldwide, look at the situation in orphanages in countries where abortion is illegal (and indeed the infanticide rate).

ThePriceIsNotRight · 12/09/2021 15:26

@bathsh3ba

Because abortion, or indeed having children, should not be looked at as ‘evil’. I also believe that women’s rights to control their own bodies should be paramount over any right to life of a fetus

Furthermore, some women may be in a perfectly stable position in life, yet still not want to have a child. That is a perfectly valid choice. When I had an abortion, could I have supported a child? Yes. Did I want to? No. Another woman in the same situation may make a different decision, and that’s fine too.

@Casiloco

in regards to late term abortion, feticide occurs before delivery, so no babies are left to die in sluice rooms. Ironically, that tends to happen when women don’t have ready access to services so employ cheap ‘doctors’ with dubious credentials.

RVN123 · 12/09/2021 16:58

[quote TheGirlCat]@Lexie365 Firstly what does your religion have to do with anything, other than perhaps it explains that you've been brainwashed? The Bible is supportive of abortion.

Secondly, it is NOT a baby. When most abortions are performed, there is no heart, no skeletal system, no brain stem, no sentience, no formed organs. What is evil is forcing a woman to risk her health in pregnancy and her life in childbirth. That is truly evil, and the catholic church in particular given all the damage it has done whether it be brainwashing people or abusing children, has no right to interfere in a woman's health and life. Abortion is healthcare, and always will be.[/quote]
Foetal hearts can be heard by vaginal ultrasound at 3 weeks post conception so this is not true. Electrical brain activity can be seen from 5-6 weeks.
For those saying it's just a bunch of cells and not sentient, aren't we ALL just a bunch of cells at the purest level? What about cataclysmically brain damaged people, either born that way or having suffered an accident/disease, with no awareness of anything? Are they sentient? Does it mean their life is worth nothing?
It's not as easy as saying its just a few cells.

ThePriceIsNotRight · 12/09/2021 17:23

Technically it’s not a heart you can hear bearing at 3 weeks. It’s a rudimentary structure that will become the heart, given time.

The difference between born and unborn is that the former aren’t dependent on the body of someone else for survival. If they were, it would of course be up to that person as to whether or not they wanted to sustain them. Personally I have no trouble stating that a fetus is alive (albeit not sentient). I believe it perfectly acceptable for women to have abortions, as it concerns their body.

Blossomtoes · 12/09/2021 18:01

That reminds me @TheGirlCat, which bit of the Bible supports abortion?

BiBabbles · 12/09/2021 18:05

@ZoeCM The simplest explanation is usually the correct one. If a woman is on her sixth abortion, she probably just doesn't consider abortion a big deal.

Many of them won't see it as a big deal -- but we can't apply that to all women who have 5+ abortions anymore than we can apply that no woman has an abortion lightly. I thought that was obvious from the context of the sentence before the one you quoted OP "Absolutes in what people feel or do are rarely helpful."

You talk against one absolute while using another. It's not all women or no women. It's some women, some girls.

Many people in this thread are calling for nuance and for things to be less judgemental, less black/white, understand multiple points of view. That's my part of it - and I've no idea of the people you know, but this law you talked about in the OP is in Texas. Things are a little different when you have communities that still preach that a woman saying I do meaning she accepts sex as her duty to her husband. I know NI posters and writers elsewhere have discussed similarities in rhetoric used within some devout communities and I think that cultural difference is important in discussing this sort of law and the many attempts across the US with similar heartbeat bills that have been going on for decades and how to counter it.

Regardless, it's her decision, and that's what we should encourage pro-lifers to respect.

I was raised in an American Evangelical community, the type this sort of law is aimed at pleasing. I know many personal pro-lifers who don't approve of this use of law, they aren't legal prolifers, and they do respect women's choices even if they view it as regretable and work to reduce it and would never have one themselves. I do know some who were more legal prolifers who have been swayed by the body autonomy argument - that we can't force people to give blood, how can we force them to risk far more through pregnancy and childbirth and how we dismiss the risks and sacrifices those who choose to risk a full term pregnancy if we force it on others. I think it's a good argument and a much better one that treating like a sin one must flagellate over. I don't think the latter is as big a win to prolifers as you seem to think. It's not a good argument, but it's not that damaging either.

Women discussing whether abortion is or isn't taken lightly isn't handing the pro-lifers anything, those who support this type of law full heartedly already think women who get abortions are having them like candy as heartless jezebels. That image is already out there, people trying to counter that doesn't really move the needle much whether the prolifers has evidence against them or not. Most who vote for this type of politician aren't that type - they vote on other issues and this isn't a big enough deal to turn them away or they're in the 'We're X denomination and we vote R" and it's part of their community identity. It'll take something bigger than encouragement to shift those voters, even more to get the ones who actively support this type of law.

This law is aimed at pleasing those who politicians are hoping will promote them in the pulpit and vote them back in. It's aimed at the ones that have spent decades viewing this issue as a holy crusade, that having the law on the books that recognizes the evils of abortion and if they overturn Roe vs Wade or find a work around like this one where because it's civil law that creates a massive barrier, not a criminal one, they can 'save the nation' and are more likely to talk about politics through that fervor. This is the type of Evangelical who thinks our bodies belong to God, not to us, and that death is a suitable punishment for sin and that God uses maternal deaths to teach us lessons -- and I'm being literal there, I've had this type discuss my friend's death from childbirth-related complications was God's plan to warn the rest of us against sin of pre-marital sex. How would you encourage that type to respect anyone who can get pregnant?

You might get a Joshua Harris moment and get one of these big voices to change their tune (though the entitlement tends to remain), but I haven't seen that actually lead to a big shift in culture. We'll need a lot more than encouragement, we need the powers within the churches and where churches are getting their powers from to have a major cultural shift, just as it took a large cultural shift to get Evangelicals to move from apolitical to largely Republican and politically pro-life. There is no simple answer to this issue, I'd love there to be, so would many exevangelicals who grew up in these communities - there is discussions on which methods worked for them and which didn't -- here is series on it on tiktok discussing why most arguments don't work which covers things well but judging how people talk about abortion is more us tearing each other apart to do things 'right' than anything to do with encouraging that type of person who thinks this law is a great idea to change their mind.

We're not talking individual prolifers feelings when it comes to laws like this, we're talking multiple systems of power working together and those who take advantage of how those systems work for their own gains. We might like it simple, but these things are complicated and I think oversimplifying it erases that this issue goes down to the roots of corruption within some denominations and communities and in our government systems.

Some women who have 5+ abortions don't care. Some are in a shitty situation. Some are both. My mother actually had 5 pregnancies at least, 2 she lost late largely because of drug use though she used drugs in all of them. She was married as a teenager because of a pregnancy and that's how they solved that "problem" rather than recognizing someone who uses contraception money for drugs maybe should be supported in a abortion that she wanted instead. She could have been more careful and likely wouldn't have cared to go through multiple abortions if it had been possible and supported, she certainly didn't in telling me how much she wished she could have aborted me. As pp said, not all women with an unwanted pregnancies end up like my mother, but in a community where she was expected to love us and do everything by virtue of giving birth, I think that more women - and more children - end up in that situation. I'll never understand why that's better or why anyone would want someone to take the risks of pregnancy if they don't choose it, but I do understand that the power structures within the communities are hurting women and children with that ideal and I've no idea how they can be encouraged to respect either.

MurielSpriggs · 12/09/2021 18:50

I agree, demonstrably untrue, and therefore unhelpful.

BillyBradshawsZedgie · 12/09/2021 18:52

@Casiloco

The dilemma I see is that a late abortion can result in a baby lying in a sluice room, denied any care and left to die. A pre-term baby of the same gestation can be provided with all the resources of a whole medical team, incubator and round-the-clock intensive care.

The only difference is that one is wanted and one is not. I'm not sure how that can be right.

And that doesn't make me someone who is trying to make women who have abortions guilty or having to agonise over the decision. It's just a really difficult moral question. To deny this is to live in unreality.

Babies who are born in the second trimester alive are never "left in the sluice room and denied care and left to die". That is complete bullshit designed to pull at heartstrings.

Babies born prior to 22 weeks will pass very swiftly. Post 24 weeks the parents have to decide if they will choose to have an injection into the babies heart to ensure they are born still.

Babies born in the second trimester, are nearly always, literally always, born as a result of a TFMR. Those babies are loved and wanted. They are held by their parents whilst they wait for them to pass.

And just as an "for your information" if a baby is born alive during a TFMR, they can have a birth certificate, a death certificate and there is an inquest. The parents hold a funeral or a memorial. They take pictures and take hand and footprints.

They are never "left to die in a sluice room" FFS.

TheGirlCat · 13/09/2021 07:04

@Moonbabysmum Fingerprints BEGIN to develop at 10 weeks. But they are not fully developed until 17 to 19 weeks. As always, the key word is begin. Begin, does not mean developed.

A person’s fingerprints are set for life by around the 19th week of gestation, roughly halfway through a normal pregnancy.

Read more: www.newscientist.com/article/dn8396-fingerprints-may-illuminate-life-in-the-womb/#ixzz76K2LBDdw

^Skin Layer Growth
During the third and fourth months of gestation, the skin of the fetus starts as a thin transparency layer and transforms into a waxy coating. During this time, the middle layer of skin, the basal layer, begins to outgrow the inner dermis and epidermis. The buckling and folding of this skin layer are partially responsible for the unique markings on the pads on the fingertips. 6 months in the fetus is about 12-inches in size and its fingerprints and footprints are fully developed. The ridges on a fetus’s fingertips have formed three main patterns. They are identified as arches, loops, and whorls, with numerous patterns in between. These patterns are found on the fingertips, palms, and soles and primarily used to grasp objects.^

www.somatechnology.com/blog/thursday-thoughts/babies-develop-fingerprints/

^By the 17th week of pregnancy, the fingerprints of a fetus are set in stone, observations show. The uniqueness of fingerprints has been recognized for some two millennia and studied scientifically for two centuries. But researchers have not been able to explain how they form.

A new theoretical computer model describes how the patterns are likely created, beginning in the 10th week of gestation, when a fetus is about 3 inches (80 mm) long.^

www.livescience.com/30-lasting-impression-fingerprints-created.html

TheGirlCat · 13/09/2021 07:11

@RVN123 That is simply not true at all. The heart isn't fully developed until the third trimester. What you are describing is a fetal pole. It is NOT a 'heartbeat'. The term is layman's terms, but it is a very misleading term.

to think "no woman aborts a baby lightly" is untrue and unhelpful?
to think "no woman aborts a baby lightly" is untrue and unhelpful?
to think "no woman aborts a baby lightly" is untrue and unhelpful?
TheGirlCat · 13/09/2021 07:15

@Blossomtoes

That reminds me *@TheGirlCat*, which bit of the Bible supports abortion?
I posted the screenshots of the Bible verses earlier in this thread.
minionese · 13/09/2021 07:52

@DifficultPifcultLemonDifficult

It's not taking away "the potential for the pregnancy to progress." The pregnancy has progressed

It is taking away the potential for it to progress Confused

It's a progressing pregnancy to be exact
Clocktopus · 13/09/2021 10:14

From pretty early on, it's clearly not just a collection of cells, any more than you or I are. I mean, by 10 weeks in, it has its fingerprints.

I've seen and held a 17wk foetus and while it has basic human form, its very clear that it is not 'finished' and that it is not capable of sustaining life on its own. Fingerprints aren't going to do the work of a functioning set of organs. If the woman no longer wants to be the one sustaining that foetus, for whatever reason, then she has the right to withdraw by terminating the pregnancy.

Moonbabysmum · 13/09/2021 10:35

The heart isn't fully developed until the third trimester. What you are describing is a fetal pole. It is NOT a 'heartbeat'. The term is layman's terms, but it is a very misleading term.

Um no.

The heart is one of the first organs to develop because it is needed to be functioning very early to support the developing embryo. Lungs, you don't need until you are born, so they develop a bit later, but the heart really is very early.

So whilst there lungs, for example, don't get used until after birth, the heart is simultaneously developing and cycling blood round the embryo/fetus body. It may still be growing, but it functions as a heart from the first trimester. The heart is properly looked at in the 20w (so second trimester) anomaly scan, and further specialist scans can be done.

A fetus can even have heart surgery in the second trimester.

I'm not actually in favour of banning abortions at 6w, but that doesn't mean we need to pretend that a heart isn't a heart all the way into the third trimester, just because it feels convenient to do so.

to think "no woman aborts a baby lightly" is untrue and unhelpful?
TheGirlCat · 13/09/2021 12:37

@Moonbabysmum

The heart isn't fully developed until the third trimester. What you are describing is a fetal pole. It is NOT a 'heartbeat'. The term is layman's terms, but it is a very misleading term.

Um no.

The heart is one of the first organs to develop because it is needed to be functioning very early to support the developing embryo. Lungs, you don't need until you are born, so they develop a bit later, but the heart really is very early.

So whilst there lungs, for example, don't get used until after birth, the heart is simultaneously developing and cycling blood round the embryo/fetus body. It may still be growing, but it functions as a heart from the first trimester. The heart is properly looked at in the 20w (so second trimester) anomaly scan, and further specialist scans can be done.

A fetus can even have heart surgery in the second trimester.

I'm not actually in favour of banning abortions at 6w, but that doesn't mean we need to pretend that a heart isn't a heart all the way into the third trimester, just because it feels convenient to do so.

Again, look at the information I posted. The heart is not fully formed until the third trimester. I posted information from scientists and an actual head of Gynaecology. What you've posted is simply not true. Even your graph shows it is a fetal cardiac pole. Not a heart.
TheGirlCat · 13/09/2021 12:48

@Moonbabysmum www.livescience.com/65501-fetal-heartbeat-at-6-weeks-explained.html

British researchers analyzed scans of the hearts of healthy fetuses in the womb and found that the heart has four clearly defined chambers in the eighth week of pregnancy, but does not have fully organized muscle tissue until the 20th week.

^Human fetuses have a regular heartbeat beginning at about 22 days of pregnancy, which is one reason why the researchers were surprised to find that there is little organization of human heart cells until 20 weeks of pregnancy.

"For a heart to be beating effectively, we thought you needed a smoothly changing orientation of the muscle cells through the walls of the heart chambers. Such an organization is seen in the hearts of all healthy adult mammals," Dr. Eleftheria Pervolaraki, a visiting research fellow at the University of Leeds' School of Biomedical Sciences, said in a university news release.

"Fetal hearts in other mammals such as pigs, which we have been using as models, show such an organization even early in gestation, with a smooth change in cell orientation going through the heart wall. But what we actually found is that such organization was not detectable in the human fetus before 20 weeks," she explained.^
www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=167987

user1478172746 · 13/09/2021 14:04

Argument about bringing unwanted life could be challenged. Are most of you living separate lifes from your parents by now? In Western world you meet them few times a year. Are they central part of your life? No, you have so much more. Even if you are traumatized by bad parenting, it's often not reason for wanting to bin the rest of your life - friends, partners, passions, careers, adventures etc. Child is not a property of parent and parents are central part of childs life only short period of time. Being unwanted at beginning often don't mean that the rest of your life is not valuable.

LukeEvansWife · 13/09/2021 14:08

Well apparently from the trauma of giving birth, you have at least 18 years which is fucked up by an unwanted pregnancy

LukeEvansWife · 13/09/2021 14:09

And it might not fuck up the child’s life, but it’s about the mother

Viviennemary · 13/09/2021 16:04

So why do they talk about detecting a heartbeat at say six weeks. They dont say detecting a fetal pole beat.

Clocktopus · 13/09/2021 16:25

Because the research on heartbeat vs foetal pole beat referenced above was only published in 2013 so the established terminology used by professionals and understood by patients is 'heartbeat'. As this research expands and knowledge grows the terminology might change too.

TedMullins · 13/09/2021 16:27

The heartbeat thing is an unnecessary distraction from the debate (I know the Texas bill is based on it, but heartbeat or no, it is not a self-sustaining life form).

Personally, I DIDN’T CARE whether it had a heartbeat, fingerprints, a brain, ears etc - it was a thing inside me that I didn’t want, it couldn’t sustain itself without my body, therefore I had an abortion. No amount of ‘but it has a heart’ would’ve changed my mind.

RVN123 · 13/09/2021 21:31

[quote TheGirlCat]@RVN123 That is simply not true at all. The heart isn't fully developed until the third trimester. What you are describing is a fetal pole. It is NOT a 'heartbeat'. The term is layman's terms, but it is a very misleading term.[/quote]
I didn't say it was fully developed. I said trans vaginal ultrasound can pick up a heart beat at 3 weeks post conception.
www.whattoexpect.com/pregnancy/fetal-development/fetal-heart-heartbeat-circulatory-system/
www.ehd.org/dev_article_unit4.php
flo.health/pregnancy/pregnancy-health/fetal-development/when-can-you-hear-fetal-heartbeat

Obviously there is more development to go after this!

New posts on this thread. Refresh page