Termination of pregnancies - too willing to terminate, maybe there are other choices?

[Ilovepastafortea]

I have trouble with the issue of terminating pregnancies.

For context I had 5 miscarriages & 1 baby born 'sleeping' at 29 weeks.

Also 2 of my (3) husbands were adopted-well DH's mother was adopted in the 1920's. The point is if abortion was available in 1963 & 1926 neither of them would have existed. Their childless mothers wouldn't have had babies to love & care for.

If my first husband had been aborted my lovely son wouldn't exist. He killed himself at the age of 32 leaving me with a baby. But at least I had my baby which was part of him.

If my DH's mother had been aborted my 3 lovely step children & 7 gorgeous grandchildren wouldn't be here. Both of my step sons served in the Royal Navy - one in special forces & got his Green (Marine) beret. My Step daughter is a nurse & worked in A&E for many years, is now a Matron. She has saved many lives & made a difference to many other people's lives including taking unpaid leave to be there when her grandmother was dying.

But then I understand why some people do it.

I can particularly understand it if the woman has been abused or raped - who would want to bring their abuser's or rapist's child into the world. I get that.

I just wish that they would think about having their unwanted baby adopted so that someone who can't have a baby can love & care for it.

My heart goes out to those with an unwanted pregnancy & facing this.

I don't know what I'd do to be honest.

I have no doubt that most women terminate a pregnancy after much heart searching & grief. However, I also hear about women who are terminating their 3rd or more pregnancies & using it as a method of birth control.

So brings me around to AIBU to ask if people terminate a pregnancy number 3 or 4 are being unreasonable?

Or not.

Just canvassing opinions.

Well, here's one. www dot theguardian dot com/world/2013/jun/12/appeal-jail-term-woman-aborted-baby-40-weeks

Yes, they are rare but they do occur, and the woman is a monster who deserved jail time.

It is simply not the same as having an abortion prior to 29 weeks where the foetus can feel no pain and does not have the ability to be conscious. It's monstrous. I am glad she went to prison and sorry she had her sentence cut.

Bloody hell Aunt Lydia, chill out.

I find it a particularly odious viewpoint as well. It's proof that they aren't really concerned about the life of the fetus, they just want to punish women for their sexuality. They don't believe a fetus conceived by rape is somehow less deserving of life. They believe that if a woman didn't consent to sex she need not be punished with a forced birth, because she wasn't being "slutty."
It's grotesque.
So sorry to hear about what you've been through.

On the rape point… would it be a condition of the abortion that the woman seeking it had to have reported the rape, they’d have been charged, gone to court and found guilty? And only then can they have their abortion? Or would then take the woman’s word for it?

Exactly so. It's a sick, disturbing point of view.

Well, that's going to be tricky, isn't it, as most men get away with rape. So, probably the woman would not be able to have an abortion.

Well quite.

No, that's not it. Although I agree with abortion up to 29 weeks, and think rape exceptions are a nonsense, it seems pretty clear that at least one reason for those who would only allow a rape exception is the massive amount of trauma it would cause the woman to be forced to carry a baby caused by rape. It seems to be an attempt to be fair to the woman and an acknowledgement of the heinous nature of rape.

It's the wrong way to look at it, but I don't think it necessarily proves the point you think it does.

It's a mistake to think all people who oppose abortion hate women and want to punish them for having sex, some are genuinely misguided and well meaning. That might not matter to you, but it is better to assume they are well meaning and misguided at least to begin with, as that allows the possibility of winning them over with logic.

and if not, women would just say they were raped so they could get an abortion.

I know I would if it was my only way to have access to a safe abortion.

Have you ever considered the fact that you are also just a mass of cells. You are also able to fight for your rights. That little' mass of cells' that is at the mercy of the host mother deciding whether it is convenient or inconvenient at this time to allow them to be born is the one that needs protection as it is totally helpless. But we are all just a massive of cells so it is pointless trying to dehumanise a foetus by describing it as that.

I'm sentient. Slime mould is cells, the fungus that grows under your toenail is cells, so is that gunk that's in the drain. Are you saying these things have the right to grow inside inside women and put her through a 9 month long medical ordeal culminating in something that might kill her? Thought not.

Fetus don't have thoughts or feelings. You don't remember the womb because you were not sentient. Perhaps if you get a tapeworm you will kindly keep it, because it's just an inconvenience and you don't believe you're important enough to have autonomy over your own body. How very fucking sad.

There is not other choice if you do not want to put your body through the physical traumas of carrying a pregnancy to term and childbirth.

Sometimes I can't believe this is a women's site.

Well, no she's right, it is just a mass of cells. I think the point is that it can feel nothing and is incapable of thinking or consciousness or anything else. Therefore the woman, who is not an incubator, must be prioritised over a mass of cells.

In real life, if you have a living child you have given birth to right in front of you who is unwell, you cannot legally be forced to give away any organs or anything else to keep that child alive. Be very careful about trying to force women to be incubators, bodily autonomy is one of the few areas the law so far protects everyone on.

If you start saying a clump of cells has as much importance as a living, breathing, talking human woman, what's next? You don't need two kidneys, do you? Can they just take one if someone else is deemed more important? Well they might if we do not protect bodily autonomy in law.

The reason I argue that past 29 weeks it is monstrous without severe extenuating circumstances is that a foetus can feel pain and consciousness at that point and is viable outside its mother. You cannot argue that a mass of cells has the same rights as a conscious human being which is capable of feeling pain - well, you can, but it might not end the way you want it to.

Are you not accustomed to women having disagreements and allowing other women to have opinions you disagree with? How odd.

So you would punish women for allegedly being "careless" with a forced birth. IMO it proves your motivation isn't really about concern and respect for fetal life, as a fetus conceived by rape should be no less deserving of life. It's about being punitive towards women for being what you consider promiscuous, which seems to just be about having sex without the intention to procreate. You make reference to contraception, but it isn't about that. You have to know contraception can fail.
You may have not thought about this in enough depth to see the incredible hypocrisy of it and the fact that it reflects loathing of female sexuality. I hope you do think about it and reconsider.

At the mercy of? What an odd way to put it. There is no possibility for either mercy or cruelty towards a fetus, as it has no thoughts or feelings. Therefore it cannot be harmed. Harm is a perception and a fetus cannot perceive anything. So what does it need protection from?

Great point. How could every woman seeking an abortion under those circumstances prove she had been raped when most rapes aren't even prosecuted. It's impossible, so they'd have to take her word for it. So you'd just end up with any woman who wants an abortion claiming she was raped.
It's like the old system we had where I live where you just claimed it would affect your mental health and got it that way. They didn't turn anybody down because it's impossible to prove such a negative, in that case that it was not affecting mental health. They couldn't prove women hadn't been raped either. So it's stupid in addition to being vile.

Unclear why you are adding yet another abortion post: you aren't going to convince anyone to change their view on it, so what is the point? Other than to lecture other people?

It really is very simple: If you don't want to have an abortion then don't have one. And what other people do with their bodies is none of your business.

Wow.

You could say ‘if X hadn’t happened X wouldn’t have happened/be here’ about ANYTHING and ANYONE! So can everyone!

I’ve had 2 abortions. If I’d not have had the first one I’d have been penniless and likely suicidal single young mum and my DD wouldn’t exist.
If I’d have not had the 2nd one, in the aftermath of post partum psychosis, I likely would have killed myself and my DD wouldn’t have a mother.

You don’t have to agree with other people’s life choices. Your thinking is flawed and illogical.
Have some empathy. People don’t go round having abortions for no reason.
There are good reasons to have an abortion.
Raising a child is forever, permanent.
People have a choice and we do not have to justify ourselves to the likes of you.

Also 2 of my (3) husbands were adopted-well DH's mother was adopted in the 1920's. The point is if abortion was available in 1963 & 1926 neither of them would have existed

You are aware that a lot of adoptions were forced back then? They didn't allow unmarried mothers to keep the babies?

That still would have happened if abortion had been around because you can't force someone to have an abortion.

I am astonished at the seeming ignorance of some of the women in this thread. Are you unaware of the psychological behaviours that will ensure other women ignore you completely if you simply name call and silence them?

Engage your pre frontal cortext, stop yelling, breathe.

Surely the women here who want to silence other women must realise that they have not won any argument or convinced anyone of anything by doing so.

So what's the point? Really, I am confused - why refuse to engage with or allow anyone to disagree with you? Why just call them names and then become enraged if the reaction is not a positive one?

Do you think it serves a wider purpose? Do you think if you silence any woman who disagrees with you you can push the narrative harder?

The reality is, if you call women names and try to silence them, they will still disagree with you the minute your back is turned.

Reactance is a term which describes the reality that when you shout at, try to silence and refuse to listen to other people this results in them strengthening their beliefs or even adopting contrary beliefs to yours. So if you are trying to actually debate then you're doing it wrong. Defensiveness causes entrenchment and people become defensive when they are shouted into silence.

And if you're not trying to debate and just want to yell at and silence people, what do you actually get from that? What's the pay off for you?

Is it just rage driven and malicious, an inability to manage your emotions whereby you get some relief from silencing other women?

Are you afraid that if you listen to other opinions, you might change your mind?

Genuine question.

That's why I use logic when discussing abortion. It's actually quite easy to approach the subject with logical and rationality, and when you stop trying to silence other women, you might realise that.

If it truly is about a fetus being a person with the same rights as any person, there would be no such consideration for the mother's trauma. It would be irrelevant.
I do agree that some with this viewpoint are misguided and possibly not thoughtful or intelligent enough to see this hypocrisy, but not necessarily horrible people. I do start out based on that assumption unless they say something obviously hateful or prudish, like the perennial forced birther favourite; "Just keep your legs closed!"

I also agree with you about fetal sentience and have no problem with limiting it to 29 weeks, provided abortion is readily available and free of cost. You can't put limits on it if it there's a months long waiting list and women have to save up for months to pay for it.

I actually totally agree with you, Op. Unfortunately, on mn you won't find many at all agreeing. I regularly see posters asking advice on a pregnancy and the replies always suggest having an abortion like it's the easy solution. Anybody pro life gets shot down whilst women having abortions (even multiple times using it as form of contraception) are always given sympathy. All you'll get in response to your question is the same old tropes, "Not your body, not your choice" etc etc. Many posters wholeheartedly support abortions and there's rarely any nuance in their views.