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?

I have 3 children and in each of my last trimesters the shit hits the fan, hence they have been born via emcs. I couldnt fathom having to gp threw the experiences i have had unless you wanyed the pregnancy to continue. I believe as early as possible and as late as necessary. My eldest was born dead on 37 weeks, my nephew at 32 weeks and are 7 and 8 years old now. For each set of parents it was a bloody hard slog with a tiny baby and a premature one. I do not use this experience to limit other women's choices. They get to decide what is the right choice for them. As a mum of 2 dd's I have to teach them that body autonomy is a very basic right, we shouldn't have to fight for it but it's 2023 and we still are.

I understood that you were talking about early delivery of a live child. I thought it was an interesting stand that you think mothers should
have the option to decide when their baby is born and what’s in the best interest for themselves and their baby- and for some women it’s termination of pregnancy, but those women aren’t allowed that choice.

I know. Unfortunately, some people are against the surgery and consider it an abortion.

@tigger2022 As in for the women seeking termination of pregnancy post 24 weeks it would be because they feel that’s in their own best interest.

No you’re not confused. It was me accidentally responding to you when I meant to respond to the other poster

That depends what you mean by "in the baby's interest".

(And who could possibly be the judge of that?)

If it's a termination for medical reasons then yes it's legal, but even then, depending on what the medical reason is, it might be that the baby could potentially live a fulfilling life if it had the chance to be born, but the parents aren't prepared to take care of it. (Thinking of Down Syndrome, for example. There are enough people out there with Down Syndrome who will tell you that their lives have value.)

In some cases it could also be argued that a healthy baby might be better off not being born for other reasons, and that's a much more controversial argument. If an unwanted child is born to unsuitable parents, placed in foster care at birth and goes on to live an unhappy life, they might argue it would have been better never to have been born. But who on earth can be the judge of that?

I actually became much more strongly in favour of abortion after spending some time volunteering in an orphanage and seeing what happens when large numbers of unwanted babies are born (in a country without easy access to abortions). As lovely as those babies were, I do actually believe that in many cases they would have been better off not being born, and yet...I don't know...the idea of them being aborted at full term still seems completely barbaric.

So yeah, I guess there are some circumstances where I'd say it is not in the baby's interest to be born, but they wouldn't fall within the legal exemption for late abortion on medical grounds.

I think that’s different though… if you’re having a late term abortion OR early delivery because it’s in the best interests of the baby, it’s not really the same argument as the people arguing what’s in the interests of a viable late term or full term baby shouldn’t be considered at all. Not saying that’s right or wrong, just saying that having a baby changed my perspective and flipped me from one side of the line to the other, although I admit in fringe cases I am less certain!

Women who have an ectopic pregnancy do not have an abortion.

But I believe treatment for ectopic pregnancy has got caught up in some of the abortion bans in America. I could be wrong but I think there are states where they aren't allowed to prescribe the medication that is sometimes used, and the surgery can't be performed until the woman becomes unwell (because otherwise it's not classed as an emergency, which is be allowed to be treated). So I assume that's why it was brought up by the PP, when responding to someone who said she was against abortion in any and all cases.

This is what happens when you have uneducated nutbags passing legislation.

DS is a good example.

90% of prenatal DS diagnosis end in termination. A termination due to DS is allowed up to birth.

Exactly this.

People only want ‘what’s in the best interest’ when it suits their own moral narrative. It’s so sad that women could strongly believe that women should be able to act ‘in the best interest’ of themselves and their own baby to request when that baby is delivered (as in a live birth) but not chose to support women trying to make an impossible decisions that may genuinely be ‘in the best interests’ in the long term. Do people really not think about the alternative for a child born in these situations, unwanted and bounced around in foster homes until someone wants them. The long term trauma of knowing your parents gave you up.

I've gone through both.

To be honest, my pregnancy made me even more pro choice. It took such a toll on my body, made me in pain, ill, the stress broke up my relationship (good riddance though), and I got diabetes. I will almost certainly get diabetes again if I have another pregnancy. The thought of ever being FORCED by the government to go through with an unwanted pregnancy, knowing what it would do to my body (not to mention my emotions) is horrifying to me.

I would think the other way round, that women who know how hard and dangerous birthing can be would be more pro choice. If it's that easy to do, why aren't we all queuing up to be surrogates for our infertile friends?

This is a misunderstanding of the position, although I definitely don’t think it would have been “in the best interests” of kids in the foster system to not be alive… I am pro-choice up to 24 weeks but choice doesn’t mean pushing or guilting people into one option or the other, it means allowing them to make a decision without judgement and supporting what decision they make.

Of course they do. The treatment aborts the pregnancy. Natural miscarriage is also called spontaneous abortion.
An medical abortion uses hormones to start the miscarriage

Whilst you are technically correct, there's a reason why most people don't actually use this language in real life. Pregnancy loss often causes women to blame themselves enough as it is without using a word which puts them in the same category as women who have chosen to end their pregnancies.

Agreed. The law in the UK is, AFAIK, the most liberal in Europe. Attempting to change it would trigger a debate that could see the law becoming more restrictive, not less. I can't think of anything more likely to result in a horrific situation like America than trying to change a law that, overall, seems to work ok most of the time. The BPAS cases of women being unable to access termination appointments just before the cut-off gave me pause for thought, but my concern is that trying to change the law to accommodate those cases could result in a lowering of that cutoff that would affect huge numbers of women. The vast majority of European countries don't permit terminations beyond 12 weeks- why would you risk that becoming reality here?

Eh?

I am pro-choice, and I’ve exercised my right to not continue a pregnancy and I also have a child, however I do believe (as with everything) that a line must be drawn. If you’re happy to allow women to abort up to 40 weeks then surely you’d allow women/mothers to smother their newborn when born. Because, that‘s not too dissimilar?

You agree with terminating a full-term baby but only when it’s the other side of the mothers skin it’s not ok to terminate?

I just think a line needs to be drawn somewhere and I personally believe that 30 weeks is far too late to abort. A woman absolutely has rights to her body, however 24 weeks is almost 6 months to make a choice. I think that’s rather fair. We have access to some of the best abortion services in the world, and therapy to access should we feel anything negative afterwards. But surely we can’t expect to abort a full term baby in the bathroom and everyone be like “oh ok, nevermind, her choice” - what was she going to do with it after? Put it in the bin?

No woman who has received the care she's entitled to would get to 40 weeks with an unwanted pregnancy. Why don't we ask how the hell that could happen and address it? It's a tragedy whatever the outcome.

Well as you have very amply demonstrated in your post, you are pro choice within the limits that YOU deem appropriate and you would seek to impose those limits on other women, therefore limiting their choice, therefore you are not pro choice per se you are pro 'choices I deem to be acceptable'

@jenandberrys 😂😂 Pro-choice aligning with the rather liberal legalities**

The line that is drawn for me is birth. It’s still a line, it’s just further than when you would draw your line.

I have children and don't feel any differently.

I don't get to decide what medical decisions another woman makes.

For me it's as early as possible and as late as necessary.

Interesting. And why is that? What makes a difference between a layer of skin? Because surely if you believe it’s ok to end a pregnancy up to 40 weeks gestation, then surely you’re ok with a new mum smothering their baby just as it’s born? Genuinely curious

Agreed

But what's the difference between 23 weeks and 6 days, and 24 weeks and 1 day?