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?

Well are we leaving it up to the woman or are we leaving it up to the doctor?

I fear I’m going to sound really patronising but do you understand how these conversations between doctors and patients actually work? Let’s take the emotive subject matter out and imagine I want cosmetic surgery.

Karma: Doctor, I’m really unhappy with my body since I gave birth, I’d like to have surgery.

Doctor: Of course, what were you thinking?

Karma: I’d like a boob job.

Doctor: Sure we can do that.

Karma: Great. I know I’m only 5 foot tall and a size 6, I’d like to go up to a 28GGG.

Doctor: Actually, I don’t think I can do that. It probably wouldn’t be the right thing for you.

See, perfectly legal to request, perfectly legal to perform but the doctor would need to say no if he thought it wasn’t the best option for the patient. Maybe we might discuss it further and maybe he might change his mind, but his obligation is to provide the best possible care for the patient, not to do everything they ask for.

Well, there was me, believing that, in a civilised society, the most vulnerable should be loved and cared for, not killed because they are not wanted or inconvenient. Yes - a woman has the right to choose what happens to her body, but not the right to choose what happens to another body, even if it growing inside her.
There is a choice for most women who are pregnant - terminate a pregnancy (kill a developing baby) or remain pregnant and keep the baby or give it to someone is desperate to have a family but cannot conceive. People seeking to adopt babies find there are few available.
And for those who have said that then the father might refuse to allow the baby to be adopted - I think that the prospect of having to raise and finance a child for its entire life might concentrate his mind wonderfully.

Why is it only infertile women who are expected to adopt?

If you want to change abortion laws so that there are more babies to adopt then you better be prepared to actually do some of the adopting yourself.

Those of us who are desperate to have a family are not automatically in favour of women being used as walking incubators to fulfil our needs and I for one am very very tired of infertile women/people being touted out by pro life people as one of the reasons abortion should be banned.

Not in my fucking name.

Nobody choosing to work in the area of birth, midwifery, foetal care, goes into it thinking they will be aborting 30 week olds. Everyone going into palliative care goes into it thinking they are assisting dying people. What a rubbish point to make.

Yeah you sound really patronising and not half as you think you do.

Having an abortion or not having an abortion is kind of a binary thing. There's no compromise. You either have one or you don't.

So if the woman wants one and the doctor doesn't think it's a good idea, who gets the casting vote? The woman or the doctor? It can't be both.

And it's nothing at all like a boob job, FGS.

If they aren’t aware that there’s a possibility that they’d have to abort at 30 week gestation, they haven’t done enough research into their choice of career as these abortions can and do happen in the UK.

We haven't been discussing whether abortion laws should be changed to increase the number of babies available for adoption. We've been discussing whether it should be changed to allow women to have an abortion at any time and for any reason, including healthy full term pregnancies, and if so, whether doctors should be required to facilitate that.

Not of healthy foetuses with absolutely nothing wrong with them, they don't.

They are both just medical procedures. Doctors are constantly navigating these situations with their patients. They are professionals and this is the only area of the profession that has this type of legislation in place. Why do you think they lose their ability to provide professional care only when faced with a pregnant woman who is considering an abortion?

So who gets the casting vote?

Wow! Always thought I was pro choice. Clearly I belong with the pro lifers based on this.

After 24weeks the waters become murky for me. The majority of women know they are pregnant long before. Plenty of time to have a termination if wanted.

Leave it until after 24 weeks and having people feel uncomfortable does not mean forced pregnancy and birth.

Maybe you could answer my question as to why you think doctors suddenly lose their ability to do their job when they treat pregnant women?

Regarding, “casting votes” doctors don’t “cast votes”. All doctors provide the best treatment for their patients, whatever that may be, except in the area where currently what they agree may be the best action may also be illegal.

I don't think doctors lose their ability to do their job when treating pregnant women.

I'm not sure whether you don't understand the question I'm asking or are pretending not to understand it because it's too difficult to answer.

Right now, aborting a healthy full term foetus is not part of the job of any doctor working in the UK, because the legal limit is 24 weeks. Technically a woman needs the approval of two doctors to have a termination before that limit, but in practice this is a formality.

If you think a woman should be able to have an abortion for any reason and at any time during her pregnancy, how do you think that would actually work in practice?

You've refused to answer the question about whether she should be entitled to have a termination whilst actually in labour, so now I'm asking a different one.

In this new scenario where a woman can have an abortion for any reason and at any time during her pregnancy, imagine a woman who is 38 weeks pregnant with a healthy foetus sees a doctor requesting an abortion because she doesn't want to have a baby.

The conversation goes like this:

Woman: Hello, I wish to terminate my pregnancy.

Doctor: You're at full term, why do you want to terminate your pregnancy? Your baby is perfectly healthy.

Woman: Yes I know but I don't want to have a baby.

Doctor: You will still need to give birth in exactly the same way you would if you went into spontaneous labour now. Which could happen.

Woman: Yes I know. That's why this is urgent. I don't want my baby to be born alive because I don't want to raise a baby.

Doctor: There are other options if you really don't want to keep your baby. We can make an appointment with social services and discuss fostering and adoption.

Woman: No. I don't want to give birth to a live baby. I would like a termination as soon as possible please.

Doctor: I don't think this is in your best interests.

Woman: My body, my choice.

OK, so then what?

Can the doctor refuse to perform a late termination if they think it is not in the woman's interests? Or should the woman be able to insist that a doctor performs the termination, even if she cannot find any doctor who thinks it is in her best interests?

How do you actually see this working in reality?

Exactly.

I cannot even imagine finding a midwife who would be willing to participate in such an act.

Ultimately the doctor will always have the final say as they cannot be forced to kill a term, heathy, viable baby.

The only option the mother would have is to go on a hunt for a doctor who would be willing to perform a termination on a full term, healthy baby just because the mother has decided she doesn’t want it anymore.

Good luck with that…..

If you don’t think that they lose their ability to do their job, then why do you think that legislation is needed in this area of medicine and not others?

Doctors deny patients treatment they want/ demand all the time. In a difficult scenario they may consult with colleagues. In the situation that you keep going back to where the woman in labour is demanding an abortion, doctors may have to say no because it’s not medically possible, the labour is progressing and it’s too late to abort as you risk a live birth. In the situation, where a woman is asking for an abortion of a healthy 36 weeker, they may say no because they cannot agreed the woman is sure and worry for the impact on her mental health. They may also say no to woman who is carrying a 36 weeker with a diagnosed disability as she’s maybe uncertain if she’s not asked for one in the previous four months since she learned her child was disabled.

I trust doctors to do the best for their patients and judge the individual circumstances of each case. I don’t think they need legislation in place which hinders them from doing their job.

You're refusing to answer the question again.

If the doctor does not agree that what the woman is asking for is in her best interests, who makes the ultimate decision?

The woman?

Or the doctor?

Say I have a child in NICU and he’s in a lot of pain and won’t survive. I demand doctors continue to treat him but the doctors know it will only prolong his still short and very painful life and mean he suffers more. Who gets the final say? The patient (or the parent representing him) or the doctor? I guess the doctor if you want to talk about final says and casting votes. I don’t think doctors would use that terminology though. The same for abortion, which is just another medical procedure.

Now you please answer my question: why do you think doctors lose their professional capabilities only when faced with a pregnant woman who wants an abortion?

I've already answered your question: I don't believe that.

So the final decision making power would rest with the doctor then, and not the woman. So much for "any reason, any time" and "trust women".

If you support the removal of any legal time limits and for the final decision making power to lie with the doctor, would you retain any reference to 24 weeks in the legislation at all?

Because at the moment, a woman seeking an abortion for non medical reasons prior to 24 weeks needs sign off from two doctors. In reality this is a formality, in the same way that the King giving Royal Assent to a piece of legislation or inviting the person who has won a general election to form a government is a formality. Doctors who suspect that having a termination may not be in the woman's best interests, for example if they suspect that she is being coerced, may ask more probing questions and do more safeguarding but they will not ultimately refuse as long as she is within the time limit.

If you remove any reference to 24 weeks, how will women know when they must act if they want to have a termination for non medical reasons? What if her doctor would sign off on it at 22 weeks without really questioning her decision but at 30 weeks would say, "No, I don't think this is in your best interests"?

How does this new, more flexible legislation help her?

What if a pregnant 14 year old who has been raped by a family member would be granted an abortion at 30 weeks by one doctor, but not by another? You have created a completely opaque postcode lottery where a woman under the care of a particular hospital will be treated by a doctor who will agree to a termination in her particular circumstances, but the same woman under the care of a different hospital would be refused one.

How is that fair?

What if there are currently thousands of doctors up and down the country who privately disagree with carrying out abortions past 20 weeks, or even past 15 or 16 weeks, but will do it because they understand that their approval is a mere formality and knew this when they agreed to take the job? If you remove the reference to 24 weeks in the legislation and put the decision making power in the hands of doctors instead, not only have you created legal uncertainty and an effective postcode lottery, as explained above, but you have also put the access that women currently have to abortions before 24 weeks at risk. Because there is no longer a clear cut off point, before which doctors will agree to perform abortions without asking too many questions or saying it's not in the woman's best interests, and after which their hands are tied by the legislation.

Isn't that quite risky?

It's all very well to have these cool sounding principles such as "any reason, any time" and "trust women" (as if anyone should trust a woman who is in labour and high on meths saying she wants an abortion, or a visibly terrified woman from a certain culture who is pregnant with a baby girl and accompanied by a man who is almost certainly abusing her), but when you actually test these theories with hard cases, they fall apart.

The job of lawmakers is to anticipate these unlikely but tragic and difficult scenarios and assess whether the proposed law actually produces the best outcome. If don't test the new law against every possible scenario you can think of, or if you pass it due to political pressure in the full knowledge that it could cause bad outcomes in certain scenarios, you have made bad law.

A. I wasn't responding to a post from you

B. I've been on this thread from the start and there have, like all long threads been several conversations ongoing so it's a bit patronising to tell me what "we" have been discussing. This is actually a point I already raise upthread previously so "we" have also been discussing this

C. Just because what I read in the post from someone else wasn't what you read doesn't mean I can't respond with my own thoughts

D. Given the language in the post I was responding to
terminate a pregnancy (kill a developing baby) or remain pregnant there was nothing there about it suddenly turning into "killing a baby" post 24 weeks but not "killing a baby" pre 24 weeks so it came across with that language as pro life

E. There have been multiple comments across the thread about how if someone doesn't want a baby an infertile woman/couple will be eager to adopt it. This is also something pro life people say a lot and was actually one of the arguments used in the over turning of roe vs wade. And frankly I'm sick of it.

If pro life people fertile or infertile want there to be more babies available for adoption because they don't want people being "baby killers" then they better damn well be ready to do the adoption themselves!

Given this thread started with women without children are only pro choice because they haven't held a baby they've given birth to it's somewhat ironic that the pro life solution is to give the baby to someone who hasn't held a baby they have given birth to.

We are both unempatheic heartless baby killers and the only people consistently urged to adopt.

And I for one am rather sick of the pro life brigade using me and women like me as a defence of their position.

@Catchasingmewithspiders I'm sorry you're struggling with infertility and I agree that the "just adopt" comments you get on every infertility thread are insensitive and inappropriate. I haven't really seen that on this thread though.

Saying that unwanted babies can be given up for adoption is not the same as saying infertile couples should adopt them.

Clearly there are children out there who need adoptive families and there are families out there who want to adopt children, thank goodness.

Broadly though, I agree with you that most people struggling with infertility do not want to adopt and are looking for a solution to their infertility which will allow them to have their own baby. Not all of the couples whose fertility treatment ultimately fails will want to adopt a baby instead.

This, for me, is one of the reasons why I am pro choice and believe it is vitally important for women who do not wish to have a baby to have safe and legal access to abortions. But removing all legal limits to this is, in my opinion, going too far.

If you don’t believe that doctors lose their professional capabilities when dealing with abortion, why are we having this debate? Just leave it to patients and doctors like very other area of medicine.

With regards to 24 week limits etc, you don’t need legislation. All areas of medicine are covered by guidelines. Doctors have these so they know best practice and to ensure similar cases are treated in similar ways. You replace legislation (a blunt tool) with guidelines. Exactly like every other area of medicine.

There shouldn’t be any doctors agreeing to abortions in this country who are morally opposed. It is the only area of medicine where doctors don’t need to act in their patients best interests and can take a moral position against. The doctors that disagree with abortion should be referring woman to colleagues and they could continue to do so.

In medicine, it is not the job of lawmakers to interfere to the degree they do in the abortion debate. Like I’ve said repeatedly, this area of medicine is an outlier and the only reason I can see is because as a society we don’t trust women to make the best decisions for themselves, and their doctors to support them in this.

I've already explained numerous problems with your approach in quite a lot of detail.

You can lead a horse to water, etc.

Ultimately it is the job of lawmakers to test whether the law being proposed works or not.

Yours doesn't.

If it did, women in Canada (a country which actually has the lack of clear rules you are advocating for) wouldn't have to travel to the States to get the late term abortions they are supposedly entitled to by law.

The person I was responding to was putting a comment up in general on the thread. They are pro life and have already put several pro life comments on the thread.

The fact that this happened at a point where you and some posters were discussing legal limits is irrelevant. This thread as most has had several conversations running through it as evidenced by the fact you are currently discussing something completely different to the OP.

So this:
But removing all legal limits to this is, in my opinion, going too far. is absolutely irrelevant to the post I was responding to. And I'm not sure how you have decided that me saying "stop assuming infertile women will adopt all the babies if adoption is banned" to a pro life poster = me saying "all legal limits should be removed"

I'm not "struggling with infertility" I have long ago come to terms with it but thank you for that patronising little opener.

I'm not sure how else to explain to you that everyone (including the poster I was actually responding to) isn't automatically speaking to you/about your topic on an online forum 🙄

Finally
"Saying that unwanted babies can be given up for adoption is not the same as saying infertile couples should adopt them.

It has been said multiple times on this thread that adoption should be banned so that infertile people can adopt babies because there aren't enough babies to adopt. As I said that was also one of the arguments in the overturning of roe vs wade. And I am fed up of women like me being used by the pro life brigade as one of the reasons to ban adoption like we would welcome women being used as walking incubators for us. That's the argument I'm making, not that someone told me to "just adopt" on this thread

I'm not sure why you are so determined to police my posts and force them back into your particular conversation.