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?

Really struggling to understand your proposal if I’m honest, would it be mandatory for doctors to carry out these terminations or not? If not, how do you ensure this would be a service accessible to all women up and down the country, with no medical staff to carry it out?

Because some could say that about aborting at 23 weeks or 12 weeks or 8 weeks.

That's...not the point being made?

There are not many women seeking the termination of a full term healthy pregnancy just because they don't want to have a baby, and in those rare cases, the fact that they now have to see their pregnancy through to the end and give birth doesn't mean they actually have to raise that child to adulthood.

The overwhelming majority of pregnant women who don't want to have a baby have an abortion in the first trimester, not at 39 weeks or even anywhere near the 24 week cut off point.

Seriously will people stop going on about the poor medics. No one has suggested forcing doctors to perform abortions. In fact this is the only area of medicine where you can object to performing a procedure that is in your patient’s best interest (you only have to make a referral if you are morally opposed to abortion).

I don’t have kids but I do thinks abortions past 24 weeks should be in exceptional circumstances only. And more needs to be done to reduce the need for abortion, like universally available free contraception, and free childcare for those parents who want to work

Would you mind answering the question about whether you think it should be legal for a woman to have an injection to stop her baby's heart while she is in labour?

Then different options are considered . It's like that with everything. Every single decision by anyone has time limits of sorts or plan has to be changed. Women are no exception in this.

Contraception is already free and has been for decades. I can't believe there are women living in the UK who don't know this.

Free childcare would be lovely but that is a bit of a pipe dream.

The point is that every woman has the option of adoption whether she be 6 weeks or 36 weeks. If you’re saying “just adopt” like it’s a better option all round, you should say that to everyone.

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.

Wow you're so clever @karmakameleon

Me stating that no woman has to parent a child = all abortion rights need to be stripped. Ok.

Unbelievably childish, just no.

So are you saying you think the law in the UK should be as it is in Canada, where women can legally have an abortion at any point in pregnancy but in reality no doctors will actually do it?

What would be the point of that?

I do not see the relevance in your reply, to my post. The discussion is whether women should be allowed to abort any baby, even at full term (40 weeks).

However in response to your question, I can honestly say that irrespective of any condition, I think that a baby should be given a chance of life. There have been cases where a mother has been told that her baby would not survive, but in fact they have.

A friend of my dsis was advised to terminate her pregnancy, having been told that the baby wouldn’t survive, but she went ahead with it. That baby was born with a disability, but survived and is now a much loved 6 year old child.

Also you asked “Are babies with disabilities 'worth' less?” My response to this is that babies with a disability are not worth less than any other baby. Some people, looking to adopt, deliberately choose to give a baby with a disability a loving home.

Contraception is already free and has been for decades. I can't believe there are women living in the UK who don't know this.
It actually explains a lot on here...
It's exactly first link on google if one google a "contraception uk"....

Your first response wasn’t exactly showing Socratic levels of thinking so responding to like with like send reasonable.

Contraception is free, but in many communities women are still not free to use it.

Well, no. If you read my previous posts in this thread you'll see that my experience of working with abandoned babies made me very firmly pro choice. There aren't thousands of lovely couples out there wanting to adopt all the unwanted babies. That's why I'm in favour of women who don't want to continue their pregnancies when their baby is as close to that 6 week tadpole state as possible.

Because there is, quite obviously, a huge difference between ending the life of a 6 week tadpole and ending the life of a fully developed healthy 7lb baby.

Your first response wasn’t exactly showing Socratic levels of thinking so responding to like with like send reasonable.

Yep, Einstein right here. Referring Socrates to sound clever. Because I stated a fact that women are not legally obliged to parent, with no further opinion stated.

You don't even deserve a reply, enjoy getting riled up on this thread some more. I'm enjoying the rest of my day.

Because there is a lot of grey and a hard limit is black and white. Women and their doctors should be allowed to navigate the grey without fear of prosecution and women having to go ahead with pregnancies that are not in their best interests.

Birth is my limit so yes. Especially if she didn't know she was pregnant until labour.

Wow.

Well, I guess you're entitled to your opinion but I do not think many people would agree with you.

Follow up question. If a woman presents at A&E in labour and says she wants an injection to stop her baby's heart before it is born, and this is legal but there isn't a doctor working that shift in the hospital who is willing to do it, should she be forced to give birth to a live baby or should a doctor be forced to give her the injection? Bearing in mind she's already in labour so time is of the essence.

But they would be free to have a very late termination once the pregnancy is visible and known to everyone?

In the UK, a woman cannot just give birth and walk away and give the baby up for adoption. It's actually quite hard to relinquish a baby in the UK. The father would be asked to take it, and then other relatives, the woman's existing children might be put on a care plan just by her wanting to relinquish. It isn't as simple as some poster think.

Doctors who do not want to carry out terminations at between 8 and 23 weeks do not train to become gynaecologists as it will be part of their contract - and choose some other specialist training

A gynaecologist asked to perform a 'termination' near term will quickly be on the phone to their medical defence body/BMA for legal advice

If pressurised they may walk out and claim constructive dismissal

PS I'm sure you are aware that some gynaecologists are women too?

That has no bearing on late abortions outisde of medical issues.
It's VERY difficult if not impossible to successfully hide prwgnancy till last trimeater in communities like this. Unlesa you completely shut off and don't go anywhere near others, especially elders.
I am not even from these and our neigbour basically told every woman on street about their pregnancies weeks before they even did the test. 👀

What would the grounds be for a care plan? The children aren't at risk of significant harm, presuming they are well-looked after and their aren't any other safeguarding issues in the home.

Maybe this does happen, but I really can't see how. Does anyone know?