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?

Being pro choice doesn’t mean you have to believe in abortion up to birth which is illegal in the U.K. (except in very sad circumstances). What a crazy black and white way of thinking.

SouthLondonMum22 · Today 13:21
MargotBamborough · Today 13:17

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.

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

If a woman hasn’t decided before full-term -1 week then she has no business being “trusted”.

Babies also appear to be able to process far more than "mummy/ milk". Based on their reactions and our current understanding of brain development etc. Not having yet acquired language does not mean they "have no capacity for thought". 😒

Ffs these posters are advocating for murder. I assume the truly believe its OK to kill a born baby up to about 6 months or so as they can't roll or feed themselves. It is the exact same argument. You cannot just deny viability and say its the womans choice. Yes up to 6 months which is later than it should be. Might as well go back to saying men can beat women up and marital rape as who does it effect its in their home? Patents can kill young babies because who does it affect, its your family etc.
This view has never been the definition of pro choice only extremists think its OK to kill a 30 week foetus.

only extremists think its OK to kill a 30 week foetus

Anyone who supports the current law thinks it’s ok to kill a 30 week foetus.

Only for medical reasons.

Or if a child is disabled.

Or if a child is disabled.

That comes under medical reasons.

If you think terminating a 30 week foetus is murder, how can you support the exception for disability?

The same way some countries allow people to elect euthanasia because it's in their best interest ie. with terminal illness or extreme suffering. But a doctor wouldn't agree to euthanise someone in perfect health.

It was very late for a "non medical" abortion. She could have put the child up for immediate adoption.🙁

Exactly. The right to choose for 6 months isn’t suddenly negated because it isn’t allowed past that. Its just a way of trying to force people with moderate views to come round to theirs because ‘you’ll be in the same camp as all those religious misogynists if you don’t’.

Is anybody able to answer, when should the limit be when you can no longer terminate a baby? When the head is out? When the cord is cut? What about breastfeeding - they’re dependant on your body for life then, should you be able to ‘terminate’ a breastfed baby?

I’m also still waiting to find out why legalising abortion at any gestation is a good idea given it can not be implemented due to all the reasons we have discussed?

I think Margot made a very valuable point about how disastrous this could be, confusing women that they have until birth to decide yet making it all but impossible to actually access a termination if that’s what they decided to eventually do.

That's cold to tag some people as okay to die while others, the economically viable ones, are forbidden from dying.

No it's not. It's the parents choosing what's best for their child who they don't want to suffer. In life (or to die shortly after birth).

There's also the fact that medical diagnosis almost alway happens later on (12 weeks earliest). There's no other chance for it to happen.

It’s about the prevention of suffering, not economic value…

Frankly, I thought that's what as late as necessary meant. For parents who find out at 20+ weeks that their baby is seriously ill or has a life-limiting or life-changing condition.

Apparently it means unrestricted right to abortion for any reason til birth.

For me it's not about it being OK to terminate if the child is disabled but not if the child is healthy. It's about the time limit.

In an ideal world no abortions would be necessary because there would be no accidental pregnancies and all babies would be born healthy. But we don't live in an ideal world, we live in the real world. There aren't loads of people out there able to adopt all the healthy children who need loving families, let alone disabled children who will be much harder to place.

I support a woman's right to terminate up to the legal time limit for any reason, including the simple fact that she doesn't want to have a baby or be pregnant right now. But if that is her reason, 24 weeks should be more than enough time to decide.

People who choose to TMFR have a much harder decision to make. In most cases it is a wanted baby and then they receive a devastating diagnosis several months into the pregnancy. Then they may need some time to do further tests, to learn more about their baby's condition, to decide whether they feel it is best to bring that baby into the world or not and whether they feel able to raise that baby, not just to adulthood but in many cases for however long they are expected to live. It is reasonable to give them more time to make that decision. And if they do decide at 30 weeks that they aren't able to raise that baby, it's unlikely an adoptive family will feel able to either. That's the reason for the exception.

I think you need to consider what kind of 'disabilities' are likely to be present

For example a baby with a heart so under-developed or 'deformed' that the baby would likely die before birth or not survive the stresses of labour. Or die soon after birth because there is no treatment. Terminating prevents suffering for the baby - and also the parents by bringing forward an inevitable death

Nothing to do with being 'economically viable'

But there are other reasons why a mother might need more time. She might not have realised she was pregnant, or she could have been in precarious or chaotic circumstances, or dealing with mental health issues, or cultural stigma. That case of the 15 year old who murdered her infant, she seemed completely unprepared and unsupported. Why would those reasons be less legitimate than the disability reason, unless you're categorising disabled children as less worthy of living?

I was responding to a PP (sorry quote fail) who compared it to euthanasia and the idea that some citizens are tagged as okay to die and others not.

You don’t need a disability that is incompatible with life or would leave you in a lot of pain to terminate. For example, my child has visual and hearing impairments. Obviously you can’t tell if a child is deaf and blind in utero but if you could I could have had an abortion at 35 weeks.

Because unfortunately you have to draw the line somewhere, and it needs to be well before the woman is carrying a completely healthy full term baby. Even if her life is chaotic or she hasn't realised she is pregnant.

Why do you need to draw the line at 24 weeks though? It’s certainly not enough time for many vulnerable women so why would you draw it in a place which denies them support?

Raising or finding an adoptive family for a child who is deaf and blind is going to be a completely different ballgame to raising or finding an adoptive family for a child without those impairments.

It's kind of a moot point because, as you say, you can't diagnose those things in utero.

But if you could, it would be a relevant factor in deciding what kind of life you could give that child.

And you draw the line between the disabled and the "normal" foetuses. That seems moral to you.