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?

Again - that’s subjective.

Bit we’re going round in circles.

The Abortion debate is about the best interests of the mother - if she wants to consider the best interests of her child, then in that specific case it’s about the best interests of the child too. But it should always be first and foremost about the woman.

people think they should have a god given right to allow their option restrict other’s choices, yet it’s something that literally affects no one but the pregnant woman

Aborting a full term baby has a pretty significant impact on the baby.

What’s the difference?

Abortion is about pregnant women.

You can definitely argue that, not sure why you think we can't?

In first trimester, it's barely developed, no evidence of pain. Second trimester is sad, but necessary for a multitude of reasons. 24 wills was invented as the cut off based on evidence.

I think euthanasia is ok too.

We also have an arbitrary age of consent, just like the 24 weeks. Maybe we should scrap that and have no age of consent at all?

Youd have to be a scenic denier to believe a fetus not alive.

Well it’s not as extreme as restricting all abortions because the extreme pro-choice view isn’t about taking anyone’s rights away. It isn’t about forcing women to do something they desperately don’t want to. It’s not about putting women at serious risk of farm because as we know, making abortions illegal doesn’t stop abortions happening.

It’s only ‘as extreme’ if you think a foetus has the same rights as a living human. Which, in law, it doesn’t.

I think the fastest way to get people talking about whether the limit should be lowered is suggesting that it should be legal to terminate a healthy pregnancy at full term, tbh.

Yes. It would be very unwise to reopen this debate especially now when many people are trying to crush women's rights. The law as it stands is reasonable. Many of the posters here who object to it have justified that position on the grounds that nobody would want to terminate later anyway except for severe medical reasons, which is already an allowed exception. So why is there a need to change the status quo?

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.

This can only be confidently said if you happen to be of the opinion that it is not alive. If you're not, then you can't really agree that you should just let the woman decide, in the same way you wouldn't let her decide if the baby was already born and she wanted rid of it. To me, a baby that's about to be born is essentially the same as a baby that has just been born.

For the same reason I don't think your "it doesn't affect you so why comment" argument stacks up. No form of child abuse would ever directly an adult commenting on what should be legal - we don't only complain about things that affect us directly, we look at what might affect "a person".

Well you wry much I’d ermine the professionalism of doctors who choose to carry out procedures. Even if a doctor got very upset (in which case they aren’t a very good doctor) it’s not a good enough reason to restrict the rights of a woman. That upset doctor won’t be affected every day in every way in their personal life. It’s just, ya know, their job. They’ll have done far more distressing things

I think you have to draw a line somewhere between ‘non living’ and ‘alive’ and passing through the birth canal is a pretty good line IMO.

Scientifically it isn't, though, is it? It's completely arbitrary.

Terminating a healthy 35 week pregnancy is not part of any doctor's job. As evidenced by the fact that even in countries where it is technically legal it is all but impossible to find a doctor who will agree to do it.

Many doctors - understandably - would also see this as conflicting with the Hippocratic Oath.

That a baby doesn't count as a living being or have any rights until it's passed through the birth canal?

Sad news for those born by C section!

Well they wouldn’t have much luck at all because legislation points at late-term abortions being a medical necessary as determined by a doctor. And no doctor would risk their profession for someone who changed their mind about their healthy baby.

Im surprised anyone thinks ‘floodgates would open’ and that there are huge numbers of women wanting abortions who have changed their mind at 32+ weeks but aren’t saying anything because they ‘know it’s illegal’. I’d go as far as to say that theory is totally unsubstantiated wank. Supported by the fact that the number of women who have 20 week+ abortions is extremely low. Do you REALLY think hardly any women get an abortion at 20 weeks but there’s loads sitting by 10 weeks later desperate for an abortion?

Their job is to preserve lives, not end them.

OK so if for example I had an abortion tomorrow, told absolutely no one - who would it affect?

I’ll say it til I’m blue on the face - the mother matters more. So their ‘rights’ are irrelevant.

Not that I’m even bloody arguing for full term abortions - my first comment stemmed from the ‘very pro abortion’ person who is so pro abortion they want to reduce the time limit by 8 weeks

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.

I don't personally gain anything from other people not being burgled or raped or having many other horrible things happen to them that the law states are illegal but I still support laws designed to prevent and deter those outcomes.

It is as extreme, which is why I think most people would see it as morally equivalent to murder, if not strictly within the legal definition.

Why do you think terminating a healthy pregnancy at 35 weeks, or indeed at 25 weeks, is illegal in every single country in Europe?

Squeamish??

You think not wanting to perform a late
term abortion is related to whether the doctor is squeamish or not?

Some of the attitudes on this thread are abhorrent.

The age of consent is not arbitrary at all.

Neither is the abortion limit.

Bit if alive is alive and that’s a fact, why is a 5 week foetus less given a lesser right to life than a 23 week foetus? Surely they’re both alive and therefore should have equal rights?

I’ll say it til I’m blue on the face - the mother matters more. So their ‘rights’ are irrelevant.

That's your view. Others do not agree, clearly. Hence the law trying to strike a balance between conflicting rights and responsibilities, whether you personally agree with them or acknowledge them or not. And the law in the UK does that pretty well on this subject, compared to most countries.

This is why I say I’m in theory any-stage-any-reason but in practice the UK has very fair, reasonable and accessible legislation and abortion services and there is absolutely no need to change the law.

Jesus Christ. This is disgusting.

Child abuse is not remotely like abortion, it affects many people, and I’m not going to pander to the offensiveness of that statement by explaining why.

Someone else’s abortion affects absolutely no one but that person.

How is it arbitrary? Do you know what that word means?

Yeah, I'm genuinely shocked at some of the extreme views being expressed here.

It's also unclear what people think should happen if a woman turns up at hospital in labour wanting an injection to stop her baby's heart before it is born and all the doctors in the hospital are too squeamish believe it would be against the Hippocratic oath to do it.

Whose rights prevail? The woman's right to have an abortion at 40 weeks or the doctor's right not to perform one?