to think they would feel differently if they had children?

[Violetbeauregardesgum]

Just reflecting that the three most vehemently pro-abortion, abortion on demand up till 40 weeks women I know are all child free. Was talking to one the other day and was taken aback by how uncompromising she was. The 32 week old baby that the woman was imprisoned for aborting was not a baby, all women have the right to end a pregnancy at any point.

I am pro choice but think the 24 week cut off is about right. AIBU to think they would feel differently if they had gone through a pregnancy to term themselves?

Rather than a term abortion I would rather a woman be able to sign away her rights to the baby (prior to birth) at that point labour be induced (with whatever pain relief she wants - bare in mind an abortion at that gestation still involves giving birth). That child then be adopted by someone else

At early gestations the child/fetus would not survive outside of the life support that is the uterus (and the woman within whom the uterus is) which is why I do support abortion at that point and I do believe that a woman has the right to say 'I don't want to be pregnant anymore' and 'I don't want to raise this child'. However I do think that a pregnancy that can survive without help in the outside world is a different issue to one that can't - the grey area is the area where a child born at that gestation may survive but needs a lot of help (so say 24-34 weeks gestation) - and I'm not sure where the cut off is in my own head

I have known someone who planned an abortion, found out their pregnancy was too advanced, decided upon adoption, plan put into place, she gave birth, baby went to foster parents after birth (she had 6 weeks before the final paperwork was signed) within 48 hours she had changed her mind and had her baby back from the foster parents, another in the same situation gave her baby up at birth and never changed her mind - left the hospital a few hours after the birth and left the baby there, 6 weeks later signed the paperwork

But if the baby is a healthy weight and 34 or 35 weeks… I really can’t see the problem with that?

I disagree with you - I think you are making a lot assumption about childless women.

I don’t agree with this, pre-planned adoptions which happen frequently in the US can be so exploitative and women often regret them but it’s too late

My 33 weeker mostly needed warmth, time to grow and develop the strength to feed. It was obvious from the start that the doctors knew that they would be fine. I do not think that a foetus that developed should be aborted. If it has reached that stage and the parents really don't want them, then give birth and give them up for adoption rather than kill a child that could have survived.

I find it awful that a baby with downs syndrome can be aborted far later than mine was born and feels closer to killing them, but i am not a scientist. I don't know what I feel about abortion in general, but definitely pro choice in cases of rape or cases where the baby won't survive.

To those who say that more developed foetuses can't feel pain, you should go into a neonatal unit and hear premature babies squeal in pain as cannulas are put in.

I’ve never noticed any correlation like that, no. I wouldn’t expect one.

I think this an interesting perspective, however, I don't think it necessarily the right choice for everyone as it can involve trauma for both mother and child

Now that is forced birth and I completely disagree.

I think a woman should be able to end her pregnancy at any point. The complex bit is what happens next if the baby needs help to survive and who decides. This will vary in individual cases and the woman needs skilled, sensitive counselling to work through it.

If you are only in favour of the right to abortion in cases of rape or non-viability then you most certainly are not pro choice.

This is exactly my position too. I have 4 DD's and consider body autonomy to be one of the most important, if not the most important thing, a mother can teach her daughters.

A foetus terminated at 23 weeks and 6 days is the same foetus who would no longer be terminated at 24 weeks due to current laws. You can say that about any limit.

The important words you use are ''has been born''. That's the difference for me.

Um, I have to that the suggestion that inducing early labour is an alternative to late term abortion, a ‘solution’ that would lead to more severely disabled children, is impressively cracked.

@Seddon agree, I would have liked the option to end my pregnancy earlier and in hindsight I know it would have been safe for DS to have been delivered earlier. I don’t think there’s much of a risk that if women were given the choice then babies might be delivered so early they can’t survive or have life-long medical issues, because if it was allowed then I think the majority of cases would be women who do want their baby but don’t want to be pregnant anymore, so I think mums should be trusted to do what they think is in the best interests of them and their baby.

Maybe the OP has got a point actually about the parent vs non parent thing.

When I was pregnant with my son I could have told you at any given time what fruit he was the same size as this week, and I could feel him kicking up a storm in there, and he had a name, and I had had a million scans, but I still couldn't wrap my head around there being an actual human baby inside of me. If you have a miscarriage at 7 weeks it looks like a prawn, and if you end up delivering your baby at around the viability cut off point, it doesn't look quite fully formed (whether it is born alive and very premature, or is stillborn). But at some point between then and 40 weeks it becomes a lovely, fully developed little baby with soft skin, who could be born at any time and look, well, like a normal newborn baby. When I was holding him in my arms I couldn't wrap my head around the fact that the day before he'd been just as pink and perfect, but still on the inside, suspended in liquid.

Second time round it was a little bit easier, but instead of looking at my app and learning that my daughter was the size of a papaya this week, from about 22 weeks onwards I started searching Google images for "baby born at 22 weeks" and so on. I know it sounds really weird and kind of morbid but I had this need to know what the baby inside me actually looked like right now. And when I got to about 30 weeks, I was Googling "baby born at 30 weeks" and getting pictures of babies who looked perfectly normal, if a little on the small side. That was the only way I was really able to comprehend it.

Just speaking from personal experience but I can see how someone who had never had a baby before might struggle to get their head around the idea that if you support a woman's right to terminate a healthy pregnancy at, say, 30 weeks, you really are just saying it should be legal to kill a pretty much fully developed newborn baby as long as it happens to still be on the inside. (Sorry if this language is triggering, it's not meant to be.)

I suspect that some people who have never given birth conceptualise pregnancy in a rather abstract way, like for example your Uber Eats app is telling you your pizza is on its way but you don't think of it as being a real pizza that actually exists until it's delivered and you can actually see, smell and taste it.

It’s interesting how posters like the OP never have adopted premature babies. They don’t have to worry what will happen to those children in the system, they don’t even appear to care. It’s sad really.

The rape exceptions always make me feel a certain away.

If someone believes 24+ weeks is equal to killing a born baby, why does it matter how they were conceived?

In that case, why not remove the law?

For what purpose? If someone is arguing the law as it stands doesn't affect what people do, why bother to change it?

Because it's unnecessary. If a law is irrelevant, what's the point in having it?

Women who have an ectopic pregnancy do not have an abortion. Women, like me, have surgery to remove the foetus from where it is growing, incorrectly, to save their lives. It isn’t a choice regarding whether to continue the pregnancy, it’s a choice as to whether you survive or bleed to death due to a ruptured ovary or fallopian tube etc.

I think mums should be trusted to do what they think is in the best interests of them and their baby- so what’s if that’s termination of pregnancy?

Also, what’s your idea of ‘ending your pregnancy earlier’ pre the 37 week that’s considered term or pre the 40 week ‘due date’

But it is an issue for a very small number of women who are also often particularly vulnerable. See this from BPAS

https://www.bpas.org/about-our-charity/press-office/press-releases/british-women-forced-to-continue-pregnancies-that-risk-their-health/

Medically complex women for whom bpas was unable to secure an appointment in 2016/17:

• Teenager who has recently left foster care. Lives alone and feels unprepared to become a parent. She has a thyroid condition (at risk of potentially fatal thyroid storm). Contacted bpas at 22 weeks. No appointment available.
• Client has a heart condition and is currently attempting to get a non-molestation order against ex-partner due to domestic violence. Has a child with a serious illness. Presented at 22 weeks. No appointment available.
• Client’s pregnancy was planned, but her health has sharply deteriorated. She has pulmonary fibrosis and a range of medical problems. Has decided to end the pregnancy as she needs to be able to care for her existing child. Presented at 22 weeks. No appointment available.

I was talking about early delivery, not abortion. I think in cases where abortion is in the baby’s interests, that’s already legal?

Because it's unnecessary. If a law is irrelevant, what's the point in having it?

Clearly many people don't think it's irrelevant, based on this thread alone. Lots of people support it as it stands.

So my point was that - given it's so controversial - given the poster I was replying to who disagreed with the law argued that the law was irrelevant because nobody would choose to have an abortion outside the current time limits and exceptions anyway, then I don't understand why they would want the law changed. Therefore an unnecessary conflict.

I'm with your mate and I have two kids. Two planned and much loved children. So mothers can and do hold these views on abortion. Me happily having two children when I did doesn't make unwanted pregnancies- for me of anyone else- any less ruinous.

Maybe I'm confused but wouldn't removing the 24 week limit benefit cases like those? There would be no limit, no racing against the 24 week limit clock.