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?

Presumably all the people posting on this thread who think that a woman should be able to terminate her pregnancy for any reason at any time.

One poster answered in the affirmative when I asked whether she thought a woman in labour should be able to have an injection to stop her baby's heart before it was born.

Well I agree…but again, who is demanding this? Abortions are that stage are extremely rare and are always carried out for medical reasons rather than ‘changed my mind’

As I’ve said, used whichever semantics you prefer - living, alive, baby, foetus. It’s all just an anti-choice red herring because even if you think a foetus is a loving being, the foetus’s rights do not, and should not ever trump the rights of the woman carrying it. It’s as simple as that.

I don't think it is as simple as that. If a person doesn't share your opinion that a foetus becomes as life at the point it is pushed out of the mother - which clearly many do not - then the woman's needs are not going to trump their need to live unless it's life threatening to the mother.

For me, and I think many, the development of a baby is a gradual thing, it doesn't just happen at birth. Hence the need to abort before it crosses that line.

None, because I wasn't aborted at 35 weeks and I'm not a doctor who would be responsible for performing an abortion at 35 weeks if this were legal, which thankfully it isn't.

Scientifically correct according to who exactly?

According to Mrs Gren.

Movement
Reproductive
Growth
And the others which I can't remember.

You can't really dispute its life, sorry. A bacterium is life, even. You can't say a moving fetus isn't life. Or even a dividing embryo.

Yes. But there are people on this thread who appear to think that it should be legal.

The pro-choice argument does not rest on whether a fetus is "life".

It is life.

It's about autonomy and the best interests of both mother and potential child.

They are rare presumably because they are not allowed outaide od circumstances.
If something is not done without restrictions, the rarity of it can't be used to compare with if it was allowed if that makes sense.

Who is arguing for it? Anyone with "as late as necessary" and "she shouldn't be punished" (the one who was recently in news).

YOU can count it as a living being all you like. It’s irrelevant because it doesn’t have the same rights as a living person. I have never said a foetus shouldn’t have rights - please point out where I did.

FWIW I think a foetus has rights in relation to its mother who is carrying it. As in, the mother has a right for her foetus to be safe from harm from others, she has a right to carry that baby to term if she so wishes - so a foetuses rights are an extension of the mother’s rights. But it’s right to be born is not as important as the right of the woman to choose her future.

With everything - age of consent, medical decision, when it is a person is to be considered ‘dead’ - you have to draw a line somewhere. Being alive and having the same rights as living humans once you pass the birth canal, or once you are lifted out the womb, makes perfect sense

It isn't about whether the foetus is alive.

It's about whether the foetus is a person.

Also I think you believe I’m arguing for the right to abort a healthy baby at 35 weeks. I’m not.

In theory I am pro-choice as in any woman to terminate at any stage for any reason. In practice I believe the current system works very well and see absolutely no need for legislation to change. I wouldn’t actively lobby for any-stage-any-reason because simply there’s no need to.

No.

Though I wouldn’t say it’s ‘extremely generous’ - access to abortions is not a gift nor is it a favour to women. It’s about providing adequate healthcare that is the best for all.

You're entitled to your point of view.

But let's be clear about this.

Believing that a mother should have the legal right to abort a healthy baby at any point before it passes through the birth canal, which is what "for any reason, at any time" means, is an extreme point of view.

It is as extreme as the belief that abortion should be banned in all circumstances and that doctors should be required to try to reimplant ectopic pregnancies.

And no sensible country with a decent record on women's rights or human rights in general bases its abortion laws around either of these viewpoints.

You'll be hard pushed to find any countries with a more generous time limit.

It's the most generous time limit in Europe, along with the Netherlands, and six weeks later than Sweden, the next most liberal country.

Where I live the limit is 14 weeks.

Also a note on those of you who think a foetus is a living being.

If it’s living from the moment of conception, how can you support abortion until X amount of weeks, and after that it’s considered killing? Alive is alive no matter what surely? At least stoic anti-choicers are consistent in their beliefs. But you can’t argue a baby is alive but ‘killing’ it until 6/12/24 weeks is acceptable

OK but you know I’m not one of them? I think it’s great that administering abortions has been decriminalised for HCPs and the way the world is now I think the shame and restrictions we have are correct, are fair and are accessible. I don’t think many people complain it’s not enough.

The thing is, people can agree with hypothetical situations all they want - it doesn’t mean anything will change or the need for an in-labour termination will ever happen. One person in theory supporting it will have zero impact on abortion availability

The doctors who you are asking to kill the baby before delivering its body. I imagine it would affect them quite a lot.

See I’m not sure where I stand on ‘when is a baby alive’ - I don’t think it matters. It’s an a tract concept. Because if a woman wants a baby let her have the baby. If not let her have an abortion. No one will ever agree on when a baby becomes ‘alive’ (despite someone insisting it’s scientific fact) so in the case of subjectivity I think the best thing to do is just let the woman decide for herself.

I think people can and do argue that it isn't as simple as that. In fact the current law backs up that viewpoint. It's the building blocks of a life at conception but as it grows and develops it becomes gradually more and more unacceptable to squash that life out - hence the current limit being at the point of viability.

There you go - none. You said it yourself. It affects no one. And if you are aborted at 35 weeks, your opinion wouldn’t be relevant anyone because you were never a human living in the world.

If a doctor is squeamish about abortion a late term foetus, they don’t have to do it. Doctors are not forced to perform procedures.

Unless Mrs Green is a person, this is not citing scientific objective fact.

As I say - it’s just semantics anyway. The abortion debate is about rights, not the definition of life

That’s because the law prevents late stage terminations going ahead.

If that law was removed and a woman could abort the baby at any point in her pregnancy then I imagine it opens the flood gates to a lot more late term abortions taking place for reasons other than medical ones.

Bit I still stand by the argument that if a late term abortion was requested for a reason other than a medical one, then I doubt the woman would have much luck in trying to find a doctor who would be prepared to end an advanced pregnancy and kill the baby just because the mother didn’t want the baby.

Just because it doesn't me, that doesn't mean it affects no one. What an odd argument.

I think women should have the right to abort until birth (although I don’t think I would personally ever make that choice). I have two kids.

Well I don’t think any are in legislative positions so I wouldn’t especially worry. It’s an opinion - we are all allowed one. But generally the better opinions are the ones that don’t affect the lives of other. Anti-choicers want to actively restrict women’s rights, increase poverty, further threaten the already weak care system and allow women to lose bodily autonomy because for some reason, someone else’s foetus passing through the birth canal is absolutely crucial, and after that happens no consideration is given to that mother and child. That utterly baffles me.

No one gains anything from someone else not having an abortion so I’m just puzzled as to why anyone remotely cares or gets involved. But someone believing a woman should have an abortion for any reason at any stage - well that view affects no one. Because women who want abortions will have them anyway, and women who want babies will have them anyway. Those ‘extreme pro choicers’ are not trying to force anyone to do anything they don’t want to do. They just want to promote choice.

That’s the fundamental difference