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?

We don't have either of those things in the UK; I assumed we are talking about the tiny number. This discusssion is going round in circles. Maybe I need my second cup of coffee.

Sorry, that should have said you CAN'T consent to GBH.

You’re missing the point. What doctor would perform a double amputation on you if it wasn’t medically necessary? None of them, because they would see it as unethical.

You can’t make it a matter of ‘doctors doing what they feel comfortable with’ because then late term abortion would become a postcode lottery according to the views of your local doctor.

Either late term abortion is a right which should be performed when requested, or it it isn’t. And we don’t have enough doctors willing to provide the service (not to mention the ethical issues around ending the baby’s life), so it can’t be. That’s all there is to it, really.

As usual, everyone else is considered before the woman.

Except people are advocating for that

I don't think it's fair to suggest that people who don't agree that it should be legal to terminate a healthy pregnancy in the 39th week just because the woman doesn't want to raise a baby don't care about the woman.

I disagree. The woman comes first when she has access to a choice of contraceptives. The woman comes first when she has 6 months to decide whether she wants an abortion. The woman comes first if, later in pregnancy, the baby is found to be very disabled or there is a threat to her life and a termination is performed. The woman comes first if she gives birth and decides she doesn’t want to raise the baby - she can literally walk away from it and relinquish all responsibility, never to see it again. The woman comes first if she has a baby in less than ideal circumstances, the state will house and support her financially.

All of the above is free and can be utilised at any time or in as many pregnancies as you want.

I feel women are very well supported in the U.K., but that doesn’t extend to ‘doing whatever you want, at any time, and others must support you in doing it’.

She comes last though, doesn't she?

The foetus is more important
The medical professionals involved are more important

The woman hardly comes first if she wants an abortion but her feelings and reasons are dismissed because meh, she'll have to give birth anyway.

That's all about the foetus, not the woman.

*The woman hardly comes first if she wants an abortion but her feelings and reasons are dismissed because meh, she'll have to give birth anyway.

That's all about the foetus, not the woman.*

At that point, yes, both are considered, and somebody's reason to not want a viable baby they will be giving birth to anyway to live will not come out on top compared to their right to live. She had a lot of time before that where only she would be considered, as that post laid out.

So you think doctors should be forced to terminate healthy babies at 39 weeks and then deliver then?

I doubt you’d get many doctors who’d remain in the profession.

Of course the mental heath of the medical team who are expected to perform late term abortions and deliver dead babies should be a huge factor.

How do you think a still birth affects midwife? I can’t even comprehend how traumatic is must be for them…..and in those instances the death of the baby isn’t even their fault and it no doubt still takes a huge emotional toll on them. So imagine a doctor having to deliver a dead baby that he himself had killed because it was professionally expected of him. He’d have to live with the forced death he inflicted upon a healthy baby and I don’t know how anyone can be expected/forced to do that.

Many posters have previously said that the 24 week limit probably exists due to the morals, ethics and principles that the medical teams have and the fact they’d refuse to terminate a healthy baby after that stage and I 100% agree with that view point.

Well that's a very black and white way of putting it, isn't it?

Either you allow a woman to terminate a full term healthy pregnancy at 39 weeks simply because she doesn't want to have a baby, or you don't.

If you do allow her to do that, you're prioritising her desire not to give birth (because at 39 weeks she could be induced and then give the baby up for adoption straight away) over the baby's right to live and the doctor's right not to end the life of a completely healthy human baby.

If you don't allow her to do that then yes, I suppose in this instance you are prioritising the baby's life and the doctor's wishes over her immediate wants.

It's also far from clear that allowing it would actually be in her best interests. If she's asking for a termination for non medical reasons at 39 weeks then clearly something has gone catastrophically wrong with her antenatal care, and I don't think I would take it for granted that she is making the best decision for her. Giving birth to a dead baby is not something most people would get over in a hurry, if at all.

Well it depends. If what people are advocating is that a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant anymore at 38/39 weeks should be forced to remain pregnant for another 2-3 weeks then I think you could fairly say others are being considered first. If what people are advocating is that a woman who doesn’t want to be pregnant anymore at 38/39 weeks should be allowed to be induced but shouldn’t be allowed to take drugs to kill the foetus first because once they are at a stage they are likely to be viable once delivered then that’s not really the same. Does it make any difference to the risks of an induced delivery at that stage whether the foetus is alive? If it doesn’t then I’d personally be in favour of a law saying you could have an early induction but struggle to support one saying you could terminate. It’s a bit of a straw man argument though as it’s not as though it’s some common occurrence and you have to someone seeking an abortion that late has some reasons for it that go far beyond just not fancying having a baby anymore

It’s not about allowing what doctors “feel comfortable with”. Medicine is a regulated profession and doctors follow guidelines. Allowing abortion beyond 24 weeks would still be covered by guidelines but there would be no hard cut off after which a doctor would face prosecution. So when a woman and her doctor agree that it’s for the best (and see some of the examples from BPAS above) where women genuinely can’t cope with a pregnancy and a child, a doctor would have discretion.

It is very black and white in my view.

Of course it isn't something she'd get over in a hurry but do you think adoption is trauma free? She wouldn't get over that in a hurry either, not to mention the additional trauma of having it forced on her.

It would be an incredibly sad thing either way which is why it should be her choice. We need to trust women that they are making the best decision for themselves, especially when it is happening to her.

Regarding the time limit, I'm not sure how many women would actually be helped by making the cut off point later. If a woman for whatever reason hasn't been able to access an abortion by 24 weeks, what are the chances she will be able to access one by 26 or 28 or 30 weeks?

Yes, you get the odd case where women don't find out they are pregnant until they are quite far along, but unfortunately you have to draw the line somewhere and I don't think these rare cases should be a factor in where we draw the line because wherever we draw it some women will be the wrong side of it.

Some women show up in A&E presenting with severe abdominal pain and are told that they are in labour. Unless you think that those women should have the right to say, "No, I don't want a baby, please stop its heart before it comes out of me", you must surely accept that the line needs to be drawn somewhere and there comes a point in time at which, if a woman discovers she is pregnant in her 7th or 8th or 9th month, we have to say, "Sorry, it's too late to terminate, all we can do is discuss whether you want to try and raise this baby yourself or have it put up for adoption."

It's not just happening to her though, is it? It's happening to a few other people as well by that point.

And I don't agree that we should trust the woman in all circumstances. Certainly not one seeking the termination of a healthy full term pregnancy.

@SouthLondonMum22 seems to be volunteering to retrain as death midwife?

and that's the issue. Women just aren't trusted to make the best decisions for themselves.

Nobody has to be a parent though, you'd adopt out.

They are. They have 6 months to make decision.

There are lots of people, in lots of circumstances, who aren't trusted to make their own medical decisions. Usually vulnerable people, which I would assume a woman wanting to terminate a full term healthy pregnancy is.

You’re right. We should ban abortion completely and set up a network of orphanages like the ones they had in Romania. That was a fantastic model.

But it’s not really about what they decide, they can ‘decide’ whatever they want. It’s about whether other people should be forced to execute their decision. Why can’t the medics ‘make the best decision for themselves’ in not partaking in something they find morally problematic and most likely traumatising?

Sometimes that isn't possible. We're obviously talking about rare cases here.