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?

All of the later cases would likely be incredibly sad and incredibly rare. It wouldn't change the fact that the majority of abortions happen within the first 12 weeks.

But having no limit would make it so those unusual cases have clarity because 'I imagine it would be available' isn't good enough for me.

@SouthLondonMum22 Yes, fair enough I suppose. I am not really in favour of no limit, as I don't want to live in a society that gives the OK to killing babies at term for any reason. I think the current law provides well for really necessary late abortions, but even if it isn't perfect I am not prepared to consent to abortion to term on demand.

Just out of interest, if I can demand to be induced at 26 weeks because I no longer want to be pregnant, would you then advocate that the babies life is saved as far as possible or nature is allowed to happen? How far do you go on the latter I terms of feeding etc? Could I demand an induction at 26 weeks and still keep the baby?

You don't need to consent to it. Only the woman who requires the later abortion does.

Of course it's uncomfortable to think about, ideally all abortions would be as early as possible but we don't live in an ideal world.

Agreed.

@SouthLondonMum22 I think society and laws are formed by a majority consensus. I would not consent to a society that allows full term babies to be aborted for any reason. I believe there should be very serious reasons, as we currently ask for. I think this is the majority view. If it changed I would doubt it is a society I could live in.

Obviously nobody wants abortion to term. But there are circumstance where it might be the least worst option.

Capitalising your SPELLYNG ERRORSE makes it so much more persuasive.

I take issue with the person saying “it isn’t loved, it isn’t wanted”. I was offered an abortion at 33 weeks for a very loved and wanted baby.

I didn’t have it in the end, I had my DS at term in a specialist centre away from my home and we pursued active medical treatment but I was incredibly grateful to live somewhere I could work through my options, none of which felt like amazing choices, without worrying about being a criminal or having to jump through hoops and spend thousands travelling across states or countries.

And it didn’t escape me that in countries like the US where this would be very illegal it would also be the case that many many people couldn’t afford the amount of medical treatment he would need.

And abortion at 33 weeks are much more likely to be this or another really complex situation than anything else. The law will always be a bit blunt but these situations are so rare and the harm is likely more from the knock on of not allowing it. I read some very shocking and painful accounts when I was reading around during that awful time.

I agree the terms aren’t right. But I also think the discussions around people deciding on a whim to end a pregnancy in the 3rd trimester for “no real reason” are theoretical and don’t exist, all that exists here is a world of complexity and pain.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make

@Boomboxinmyattic give over your hell bent on seeing things from your own pont of view.

@nothingcomestonothing you wouldn't because I don't agree with you. Ahhh what a surprise another pearl clutcher.

I agree, those banging on about late term abortions for no reason are arguing about a theoretical (to them) situation and have no grasp of what that is like to live.

Genuinely what are you talking about?

I'm trying to understand your point and all you can do is tell me I wouldn't agree with it without telling me what it is?

Please do elaborate on how I am pearl clutching

What makes you think that they wouldn't be serious reasons? Again, we are talking about rare cases which are going to be very desperate and very sad because most abortions would continue to happen as early as possible.

Society isn't always correct. Especially when it comes to the rights of women.

@user9630721458 @SouthLondonMum22 serious reasons like what? Because medical reasons have already been covered. Please elaborate genuinely interested to learn.

🥱

@Isitpaydayyet the gaps in your literacy are showing 😪.

The anti-choice people refuse to see in shades of gray. They think it's better to ban all abortions, even when the fetus is doomed due to genetic or other developmental mishaps, and they don't mind the psychological harm to the mother and her family of not being able to abort a fetus that has no chance to survive. The stance of the pro-choice people is that the GOVERNMENT should not be able to make such decisions, even if they themselves personally would not consider an abortion except in certain circumstances, none of which are the government's business. Pro-choice people are not forcing their beliefs on anti-choice people. If anti-choice people don't want an abortion, no one will make them get one. Anti-choice politicians ARE forcing their beliefs on pro-choice people, in that they make laws/tell people who need or want an abortion that they cannot get one, no matter what. (I'm in the US)

Anti-choice ("pro-life") people have exactly NO greater moral stance than anybody else, and probably have much less given their rigid and inflexible stance and the harm it does to others they think themselves morally superior to.

Pro-choice people include the rest of society that wants others to mind their own business and not worry about the morality of people whom the anti-choice people presume to be amoral.

In essence, it's the same argument of people who say atheists cannot be moral because they don't believe in God, even though it's quite possible that scores of atheists and agnostics and non-religious people are very much more compassionate and moral than the bunch of judgmental "conservative" anti-choice people are.

Pro-life people are not "pro-life"; they are misguidedly anti-choice.

Also; my sister had a molar pregnancy requiring an abortion due to a genetically abnormal fetus and with no chance of viability and an abnormally growing placenta causing life-threatening high blood pressure in my sister. Thankfully she lived at a time when and in a state where abortion was legal. She could have died if untreated. She would never have considered an abortion except that her life was in danger if the pregnancy continued. She was treated at a Catholic hospital which agreed with her doctor that an abortion was necessary. She recovered and went on to have three healthy babies. The anti-choice people could have killed her and my nieces and nephews never been born. The anti-choice people have zero monopoly on what is moral in this or any other circumstance of someone else's pregnancy.

You can only think of medical reasons as possible serious reasons?

A woman or lets not forget that it isn’t just women that get pregnant but very young girls too and they aren’t always going to find out before 24 weeks for a start. Should a young girl be forced to remain pregnant because she either didn’t know or was too scared to tell anyone until 25 weeks?

There’s also rape, incest and domestic violence just to start where it isn’t always as easy as getting an early abortion.

Again, an early abortion is always the ideal but that isn’t always going to happen. Again, especially when we’re talking about very sad situations including the likes of abuse and also how potentially young someone may be.

I said this on the other thread. It’s a biological certainty after about 24 weeks gestation that a birth is going to take place. Its too late to avoid birth at this point abortion or no. Other humans aren’t forcing birth biology is.

The birth may be surgical or vaginal, it may come naturally or be induced, it may be of a dead foetus or alive baby but at some point in the next 24 or so weeks the pregnancy is going to exit the womb - a birth will take place (even if the mother dies a post death c-section is usually carried out to try and save the baby), as in something that looks to most of us like a (very) small baby will leave the womb usually through the process of labour via the vagina (but can be via an operation) and the women will have all the issues of being post partum baby or not

Trying to pretend that late stage abortion prevents unwanted births isn’t useful. It prevents unwanted live babies or when rarely done in the uk it’s prevents suffering via live birth of a baby that would have only known a short life full of pain. The mothers that make the very difficult but valid decision to terminate wanted pregancies because the baby will know nothing but suffering if born alive do have a labour and birth their babies and your “forced birth” rhetoric invalidates their experience.

Abortion to term, to the moment of delivery in fact is available in the Uk as provided in the 1967 abortion act if certain conditions are met, cases of rape causing mental distress would almost certainly meet the criteria after all abortion has been legal in cases of rape in the UK since 1938 (r vs borne) (it was the doctor who went to court not the women btw) and the abortion act was a way to formalise the existing case law and make acsess easier

it’s probably worth saying again that after 24 weeks even if an abortion is carried out and even if it’s surgical the women is going to have some physical sequale - you can’t make pregancies of that gestation “disappear”

A baby being a baby starts a lot earlier than an hour before birth! They can feel pain from around 24 weeks.

Speaking as a doctor I am worried about a potential change in the law because I will be required to enact it. It’s one thing to consider the concept of euthanisia in the abstract of for oneself but to consider being the person who has to give that injection or medication knowing it will kill someone, that’s a big things to consider. I have turned off life support for people who are brain dead and prescribed and administered massive doses of morphine to the already dying and signed the abortion act paperwork and given the abortion pills to women and I know what variations of am emotional mess I’m in with all of them. I’m not sure I’m emotionally up to straight up killing people.

I’d be a lot more pro euthanasia if I didn’t think I’d get called on to actually have to look someone in the eye when I kill them.

No they can't (credit to ditalini on another thread)

https://www.rcog.org.uk/guidance/browse-all-guidance/other-guidelines-and-reports/fetal-awareness-updated-review-of-research-and-recommendations-for-practice/