To not find the labels "pro-life" and "pro-choice" useful

[Middlelanehogger]

My position is that over the course of a 9-month pregnancy, the "thing" inside the womb transforms gradually from a ball of cells with value 0 (on the first day of conception) to a fully-grown baby (in the minutes just before it exits the birth canal).

There are some significant milestones, for me personally somewhere around 12 weeks after the risk of miscarriage dramatically lessens, and somewhere around 24 weeks when the baby is viable, but that doesn't lessen the "gradual" development of the life inside.

I don't have an issue with the current decrim legal framework in the UK. I think it's fine. I think abortion is sad and is taking a life. I think sometimes that's justified. I think even if it's sad, I'd rather the procedure be in the light of day with medical care. I think the closer you get to the end of the pregnancy the more the life inside starts to count in ethical calculations, such that there is an almost smooth transition for the rights of a baby 1h before birth vs 1h afterwards. I think it's similar to killing puppies - it's really sad, sometimes necessary, should be regulated, shouldn't be a free-for-all...

So I don't count as pro-choice or pro-life. But I don't think my position is all that different from a lot of people's.

It really concerns me that people want to push this "pro-choice means as late as necessary for any reason and that's the only feminist position" thing. It will damage our current status quo.

Aibu?

Totally with you on the wording being too basic OP, it's clearly a far too complex concept to be reduced to only two phrases and that sets people up for battle. Great point!

I'm glad you have flagged this point. I wish OP or someone would start a thread on why people would want a late abortion (past the UK laws). So I could understand other people's reasoning (aside for medical issues that are not always known).

I have to massively disagree with you HERE. There is plenty of contraception available maybe we need to start using condoms also. There's also emergency pills you can buy without a prescription. We are not in a 3rd Country with lack of resources.

People have to take some accountability having sex is an optional thing... (most cases).

A late term abortion is essentially a stillbirth, the woman has to go through labour and give birth to a dead or dying baby. It's absolutely horrific so the idea that any woman would choose this on a whim is laughable. What if a woman can't afford to feed a child? Or another child?
Why don't anti-abortion activists campaign for better access to contraception, healthcare and support for women? Widespread, safe and affordable access to contraception would effectively reduce the need for abortions and yet is strangely lacking from anti-abortion rhetoric. How many powerful 'pro-life' men have made use of abortion when it suits them - whoops knocked up the mistress! Can't have a scandal!
The argument 'life begins at conception' is irrelevant - if I asked any of my loved ones to choose between me dying or my as yet unborn child they wouldn't hesitate to choose me. I think most people can say the same. Life is suffering - being an adult means making difficult choices. We don't live in a world that provides for the vast majority of its population and the abortion debate is just another way to divide and conquer. Afghanistan has the highest rate of infant mortality in the world, maybe start there if you want to save babies .

This. I've been following that thread and it's quite appalling. I noticed those people couldn't actually explain why anybody has CHOOSEN not to have an abortion earlier though. I couldn't believe what I was reading. Not sure if it's still going but it was an interesting thread

I don't think it's that strange really, people use anthropomorphism all the time to bestow different characteristics or value to things depending on the circumstances. In the case of a fetus, it's a way of facilitating early bonding and to allow prospective parents to envisage their future baby. The fetus at an early stage of development like 12 weeks is nothing like an actually fully formed baby.

In reality, the fetus is less developed and conscious than the farm animals that we kill at will without a second thought to the fact that they have a heart beat or wriggle around. So if you're so disturbed by killing a fetus, are you equally disturbed by the meat industry? If not, why not?

I thoight this would be what a thread is about. Because mlre orrect term is pro birth. None one cares about the life after....

better access to contraception

Uk has great access to contraception and for free though.

I think the comparison is apt.

As I said in the OP the "thing" goes from senseless ball of cells to full human being over the course of 9 months. In my mind at some point along the way, it passes through being equivalent to animals of various levels of sentience.

I eat meat and I am okay with animals (e.g. pets) being "put to sleep", I am okay with farmers shooting for pest control etc. But I still see those animals as "lives" albeit somewhat lesser than human lives (I know others may disagree). So I 100% think that abattoirs should be regulated and killing methods should be as humane as possible within our current levels of tech. Likewise I think while it should be legal for vets to euthanise pets, you should still be able to be prosecuted for randomly killing a puppy.

It just isn't good for society to be dismissive and casual about taking lives. That doesn't mean never doing it. But I don't like the trend of everyone talking about abortion as either blanket "a boring medical procedure" or "genocide", or aggressively weighting either the ball of cells or the mother's total free choice way too much. It's a scale.

I had to go private to have a copper coil fitted after weeks of trying to get an appointment on the NHS - and I live in London. There was a great sex/gyno clinic at St George's hospital which is now closed down - nothing has replaced it - that clinic was for a whole borough. Even in the UK sex education is limited - I don't remember ever being told about doctor patient confidentiality, lots of adults aren't aware of the options available. Beside the point however as abortion access in the UK is also free and relatively easy to obtain. The real question is why do countries that ban abortion also ban contraception? Or restrict access/education regarding contraception/reproductive health and how women can PREVENT ever having to need an abortion in the first place. What is the real issue here?

I'd say pro choice and anti woman are 2 more accurate labels.

Because they want to punish women for having sex.

It isn't about the foetus at all because the same people in those countries are usually all about restricting government assistance. They don't care about a baby once it's born.

They'd rather ban books and abortions rather than guns using America as an example.

It's also emotive because those who suffer a miscarriage for example (as I have myself) grieve for what could have been but still it can be upsetting to hear 'bunch of cells' as to you it's a baby. The biology stays the same but how things are viewed changes.

Beautifully put.

'As late as necessary' doesn't mean 'wahey, let's get rid of third-trimester babies on a whim', as some people seem very keen to interpret it.

As late as necessary for the protection of a woman's autonomy, human dignity and health.

I’ve noticed these sorts of threads more and more lately. It seems to me that as in the US, the anti abortion movement are playing the long game to restrict abortion in the U.K.

First of all instilling doubts about the time limits. Suggesting a move from 24 to 20, then why not 16 or 12 and so on. Before getting to the stage where it’s banned altogether.

In my opinion the abortion act has worked well. I do however believe abortion should be decriminalised.

As I understand it abortions after 24 weeks are extremely rare. It’s ridiculous to suggest a woman suddenly changes her mind, given she is likely to go through labour anyway.

I understand that they are carried out for reasons to protect the mother’s health (suppose you need urgent treatment, have other kids and/or a high risk of dying), or because the child has severe abnormalities. Perhaps also in instances of concealed pregnancy - incest or rape.

I’ve had both an abortion and two children. It’s not an easy decision to make under any circumstances and no one has the right to sit in judgement on other women who have had to make this painful decision.

Pro choice and Pro forced birth works for me.

I saw some statistics on extreme prematurity recently. IIRC, even at 22 weeks 3 out of 10 babies survive, of whom 1 in 3 have a significant disability. I think at 24 weeks the majority survive and something like 1 in 4 of those have a significant disability.

"pro-life" shoul;dn't be used. It should be anti-abortion. The pro-life movement gives zero shits for what happens to that baby, or the life it will have, after it's been born. It also does not care in the slightest about the life of the pregnant woman (as we see in extreme legal frameworks where abortion is still not allowed even if the woman's life is in danger).

So call yourself whatever you want, but please do not buy into the terminology of "pro-life" as though they are doing something noble protecting all those lives from those who are, by implication of the that terminology used, anti-life.

Pro choice works for me

Pro forced birth doesnt sit right with me. It works for first trimester and unwanted pregnancies but not so much for after the anomoly scan, plus a delay to access medical care. As my understanding is its quite a big procedure and some women even give birth at that point.

Pro life doesnt work for me as women seem to end up dead in pro life countries.

I agree with you.
I have always said there should be a third camp "pro common sense" I actually think most people would be in this camp. Both pro life and pro choice have equally abhorrent views and I don't agree with either of them.

So @Bunbuns3 what is ‘common sense’ in this context. Your personal judgement on other people?

OP,

I lived in America for a while and you have essentially reflected the reasoning used by the Supreme Court when it (briefly) established a limited national right to abortion in Roe v Wade.

I think it is a thoughtful, nuanced position and I largely agree with you. I support choice but I liked President Clinton’s motto that the ideal would be that abortion should be ‘safe, legal and rare’, reflecting the inherent loss.

Of course good access to contraception is crucial and that can be complicated.

The thing is, what if science made it possible to support babies born earlier and earlier - from 12 weeks, say. Should the abortion limit be brought back to then and there?

You can't ban abortion, it's always happened and always will. You can only ban legal and safe abortion. So the 'pro life' people would be making a return to women maimed and killed by backstreet abortionists.

I also don't believe that most people who think they're 'pro life' wouldn't change their minds if a loved one needed one - a 13 year old say, or pregnancy after rape, or where the baby wouldn't live more than a few hours, or where the mother would die if the pregnancy proceeds.

My mother was anti abortion but said she'd support us if we ever wanted one. To me, that's hypocritical. If you think people should be criminalized and imprisoned for abortion, that should apply to your own daughters too