Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: chat

Can I be a feminist and not be fully pro-choice until term?

344 replies

Moonfishstar · 24/02/2024 19:03

As in to think there should be some restrictions on stopping a mother aborting their foetus very close to term if there is no reason other than the mother has decided not to proceed?

OP posts:
Thread gallery
5
falalalalalalalallama · 25/02/2024 05:16

sprigatito · 24/02/2024 19:10

The idea that women are having 38 week abortions of healthy foetuses on a whim is in itself misogynistic, btw. The idea that this is a common enough scenario to need legislation to prevent it is really offensive. Unrestricted access to abortion isn't about aborting more foetuses, it's about respecting that women are adults who can be trusted to make their own reproductive choices. Your position is inherently anti-feminist.

This.

plantlover34 · 25/02/2024 05:18

@IHaveNeverLivedintheCastle finally someone making sense.

I find it very odd that so many people are saying that a baby might survive if birthed at 24 weeks. The odds of surviving, even with the best medical care, are about 50%. What about the ones that don't? What about if you just let nature take its course, how many would survive then?

Of course having an abortion at term doesn't make sense, nobody is asking for that. I think we have rules that make sense in the UK, unlike many places in the US now. I think they allow for as much bodily autonomy as possible, whilst balancing and discouraging the unavoidably traumatic experience of a late stage termination (I.e. only when necessary).

I guess the important thing to remember is that no matter our personal feelings, we shouldn't be able to force other women to do what we think with their bodies - of course they receive medical advice, but with their best interests at heart (not coercive).

sashh · 25/02/2024 06:20

ZebraPensAreLife · 24/02/2024 19:10

You can have bodily autonomy without having an abortion, though.

I fully believe that a woman has the right to decide at any point that she doesn’t want to be pregnant any more. But if the foetus could survive and be healthy outside its mother, it should be given the chance to do so - so the pregnancy should be ended by a live birth rather than by abortion.

I don’t consider that position anti-feminist.

I would.

There was a case in Ireland, a young woman asylum seeker who had been raped as she was fleeing her home country.

She did not want to be pregnant. She could not get an abortion in Ireland. She tried to get to the UK but was arrested. She was returned to Ireland.

As she couldn't get an abortion she stopped eating.

She was detained in a mental hospital.

The court made an order that she would be forcibly fed and hydrated. But this was not carried out and she was told by the hospital they would carry out an abortion.

They didn't, instead they performed a cesarean at 25 weeks.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/17/ireland-woman-forced-birth-denied-abortion

https://www.amnesty.ie/ms-ys-case/

Ireland: Woman forced to give birth by caesarean after being denied abortion

Immigrant saying she was suicidal was refused termination at eight weeks before court made her have the baby at 25 weeks

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/17/ireland-woman-forced-birth-denied-abortion

Moonfishstar · 25/02/2024 07:29

sprigatito · 24/02/2024 19:04

I think not, personally. Bodily autonomy for women is pretty basic.

One thing I've found striking about this thread is how self-evident people on different sides of the debate believe their opinions are.

Supposedly full and unfettered rights to abortion to term for any reason is "basic" on one side whilst the other (interestingly comprising women many of whom would call themselves feminist) say that "obviously" no one would support the termination of a healthy viable baby close to term.

Also, for many, it seems that adhering to feminism is so much more than a desire to put an end to sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression and to achieve full gender equality in law and in practice (which I wholeheartedly agree with) but a creed that requires its adherents to advocate an extreme pro-choice position or be deemed part of the misogynist patriarchal enemy!

OP posts:
Moonfishstar · 25/02/2024 07:42

@PaperDoIIs

Tbf, saying no abortions past 24 weeks(except for medical reasons) is black and white thinking. It's as early as possible,as late as necessary that actually allows for all the greys.

On the contrary, the decision for a 24 week limit, with various caveats and conditions, is a consequence of nuanced thinking and compromise, that seeks to balance the ethical dimensions of the abortion issue.

The "as early as possible, as late as necessary" is a pithy mantra that boils down abortion into a simplistic one-dimensional ethical issue that revolves entirely around a woman's bodily autonomy and a woman's absolute right in all circumstances to exercise that, without even permitting any consideration whatsoever of foetal viability or rights. As such, it is very black and white ethically.

OP posts:
snowbird21 · 25/02/2024 07:54

I think feminists have a range of views - not everyone thinks the same just the same as any other movement or those who belong to a political party. I don't support abortion but I would describe myself as a feminist.

Moonfishstar · 25/02/2024 08:06

@PaperDoIIs

So women shouldn't be allowed to have late term abortions because some women are pure evil and psychopaths, so instead we'll force those women to give birth to a live baby and possibly raise it?

But there are very few, if any, absolute rights in even a free society. Pretty much all of our rights have parameters.

I believe a mother has a right to raise a baby as she chooses - the state shouldn't interfere or dictate. She has the right to determine sleep patterns, whether the baby is breast or formula fed, when to wean, how to dress the baby etc.

But I don't believe, and you'd struggle to find anyone who believes (even the most ardent of feminists), that this right of a mother is absolute, and there should be no restrictions on the mother whatsoever.

I don't believe anyone, even the most feminist of feminists, is against making it illegal for a mother to intentionally harm her baby, on the basis that this would be an unwarranted intrusion of the patriarchy onto her natural rights as a woman, as what mother would ever want to do such a thing!.... and it's just so very, very rare that we don't even need such a law!

Rather, it is recognised universally that, sadly, not all women act morally, and society does have a role in placing boundaries on their actions.

OP posts:
Chairwoman · 25/02/2024 08:13

The thought of late term abortion honestly makes me feel sick. I can totally understand there are many reasons a woman might not to have a baby however, I just think it’s too late at that point. Other options need to be considered instead eg adoption.

I haven’t personally had an abortion and like to think I never would but I’m supportive of abortions up to 12 weeks, between 12-20 weeks is a grey zone for me, and 20 weeks a no go unless the baby has an illness, etc.

I wouldn’t broadcast my views IRL and I can see how they are possibly controversial but having had 3 babies, finding out the sex at 16 weeks (even having a 3d scan of the baby for one) that’s what they are - babies! It makes me really uncomfortable and not even at the current viability cut off.

I also struggle with being a ‘feminist’ and in a way the blanket ‘you can’t be a feminist if you don’t believe in X Y Z’ just alienates women and pushes us further away, which surely is not what feminism wants to achieve. I want to be a feminist, I’m thankful for the opportunities it’s created in my life, but I find it quite an unforgiving and black and white space which I can’t get onboard with.

DaffodilsAlready · 25/02/2024 08:13

Moonfishstar · 24/02/2024 23:42

That's an incredibly nihilistic and bleak perspective, all in the service of an absolutist pro-choice position. 😔

Foetuses and babies have an instinctive urge to live, as we all do, so to say they don't want to live is very inaccurate.

If you mean that they don't have a conscious appreciation of life and death, and therefore their will to live is merely instinctive rather than a conscious desire, then you're effectively saying that it's of no consequence if any child under the age of 3 lives or dies, and anyone with severe mental incapacity too.

Foetuses do not have an ‘instinctive will to live’. I have had three miscarriages and my sister had a stillbirth at term. I think the statistic is 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage. Thankfully stillbirths are much, much rarer. But to say that foetuses and babies have ‘an instinctive will to live’ is fairly tone deaf to anyone who has experienced foetal or neonatal loss.

The last paragraph of your argument brings in people with severe mental incapacity or children under three, but the point about abortion limits is about when the foetus becomes a legal entity, not people who have already drawn breath. If we are talking about people who have already drawn breath, we are into the realms of eugenics, not feminism. Of course abortion advocacy earlier in the twentieth century was linked with eugenics as was the birth control movement, which is one reason I always think it is important to remember that choice has two sides - the right to give birth as well as not, and that the more support is taken away from pregnant women and the more pressure to have an abortion as their circumstances are not ‘right’ or there is something wrong with the foetus, the more that choice is eroded - in other words, the more that wider societal and economic pressures, even community and family pressures impinge on that choice, the less it is actually a choice. (Here, I would also include the lack of appropriate facilities for disability care and support for parents of disabled children).

The slogan, my body, my choice, tries to strip away all these complex social, economic, medical, community and family pressures and centres the woman who has to either carry the baby and birth the baby and her reproductive autonomy. The slogan trusts her to be the best judge of her social and economic circumstances, medical situation, community and family pressures and make the informed choice of what is best to do. This is a feminist position, in my opinion.

And whilst it may sound extremist to say that this also includes abortion near term, in fact, as many, many posters have pointed out on this thread, the vast, vast majority of abortions are in the early weeks. It is also more difficult to access later abortion. If a woman is inducing abortion after the legal limit, and without there being medical reasons for this, she is likely doing it alone and without appropriate care. Then the question becomes what has gone wrong? Why has a woman got to the position she is so desperate that it seems better to risk an illicit abortion or rather, bring about a stillbirth, than carry this baby to term and birth this baby? That she has got to this position is an indictment of society and the messages and support society gives to mothers and women who are pregnant.

In such a situation, the question ‘are you are feminist to support this?’ actually means ‘do you support the woman in this position and extend understanding, compassion and care, or do you think she should be prosecuted?’.

DaffodilsAlready · 25/02/2024 08:21

snowbird21 · 25/02/2024 07:54

I think feminists have a range of views - not everyone thinks the same just the same as any other movement or those who belong to a political party. I don't support abortion but I would describe myself as a feminist.

Well, yes, feminism is a broad church, thankfully, which is why the world has had and has many, many women working to improve the position of other women around the world and in their communities and give them more choices and opportunities in their lives. What people believe on abortion is only one part of that (however, ‘I don’t support abortion‘ needs to be balanced with a coherent and achievable strategy to render it unnecessary, otherwise we would be back to the position of the early twentieth century when one in five maternal deaths was from illegal abortion).

dammit88 · 25/02/2024 08:25

I actually think the term " as early as possible as late as necessary" demonstrates there is a difference between early abortion and late abortion. Why not just as late as necessary?

sashh · 25/02/2024 08:32

Moonfishstar · 25/02/2024 07:42

@PaperDoIIs

Tbf, saying no abortions past 24 weeks(except for medical reasons) is black and white thinking. It's as early as possible,as late as necessary that actually allows for all the greys.

On the contrary, the decision for a 24 week limit, with various caveats and conditions, is a consequence of nuanced thinking and compromise, that seeks to balance the ethical dimensions of the abortion issue.

The "as early as possible, as late as necessary" is a pithy mantra that boils down abortion into a simplistic one-dimensional ethical issue that revolves entirely around a woman's bodily autonomy and a woman's absolute right in all circumstances to exercise that, without even permitting any consideration whatsoever of foetal viability or rights. As such, it is very black and white ethically.

It is a one dimensional ethical issue. It is about a woman's bodily autonomy.

Moonfishstar · 25/02/2024 08:52

@sashh

It is a one dimensional ethical issue. It is about a woman's bodily autonomy.

A significant majority people disagree, and can see that foetal viability and rights need at least to be considered, even if they are ultimately dismissed as not being the key factor.

To say that it's not even something that needs any consideration, even if you ultimately hold its subservient to female bodily autonomy, is just obtuse.

OP posts:
SaffronSpice · 25/02/2024 08:59

Foetuses do not have an ‘instinctive will to live’. I have had three miscarriages and my sister had a stillbirth at term. I think the statistic is 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage. Thankfully stillbirths are much, much rarer. But to say that foetuses and babies have ‘an instinctive will to live’ is fairly tone deaf to anyone who has experienced foetal or neonatal loss.

That makes as much sense as saying someone a young mum who dies of cancer, a teenage who dies of a sudden heart condition, or seven year old who dies of meningitis did not have an instinctive will to live.

HBGKC · 25/02/2024 09:01

"It is a one dimensional ethical issue. It is about a woman's bodily autonomy."

I don't think any reasonable person (feminist or not) can say that the ONLY issue involved is women's bodily autonomy.

You can say that that's the most important issue, in your opinion, which trumps all others, but surely you can see that there are other issues in play also, @sashh?

Not least the fact that the further along in gestation, the more difficult (to perform and to recover from, both physically and psychologically) abortions become.

And the fact that there are thousands of foetuses who are born alive after attempted abortions post-20 weeks every year in this country alone - who require the involvement of healthcare professionals in their care, even if they die very soon after. This is obviously potentially very traumatic.

Anyone who contends that this whole area isn't an ethical minefield is perhaps not in full possession of all the relevant data.

There are other issues involved, not only the bodily autonomy of the mother. Many of the posters on this thread do not consider it unfeminist or anti-abortion to point this out.

DaffodilsAlready · 25/02/2024 09:03

SaffronSpice · 25/02/2024 08:59

Foetuses do not have an ‘instinctive will to live’. I have had three miscarriages and my sister had a stillbirth at term. I think the statistic is 1 in 4 pregnancies end in miscarriage. Thankfully stillbirths are much, much rarer. But to say that foetuses and babies have ‘an instinctive will to live’ is fairly tone deaf to anyone who has experienced foetal or neonatal loss.

That makes as much sense as saying someone a young mum who dies of cancer, a teenage who dies of a sudden heart condition, or seven year old who dies of meningitis did not have an instinctive will to live.

I kind of see your point, but not wholly.
The distinction would be about the sentient, conscious will to live, I suppose, which comes back to when we confer foetal personhood.

Rosesanddaisies1 · 25/02/2024 09:03

Seems a moot point, where can you get an abortion by choice, that late in pregnancy?

DaffodilsAlready · 25/02/2024 09:05

Rosesanddaisies1 · 25/02/2024 09:03

Seems a moot point, where can you get an abortion by choice, that late in pregnancy?

You can’t- it’s an entirely spurious argument made to discredit the pro-choice position.

SaffronSpice · 25/02/2024 09:05

If a 38 week pregnant woman is stabbed causing the death of the foetus, should this be considered or only the injury to the woman?

Naptrappedmummy · 25/02/2024 09:06

SaffronSpice · 25/02/2024 09:05

If a 38 week pregnant woman is stabbed causing the death of the foetus, should this be considered or only the injury to the woman?

No, look up child destruction

SaffronSpice · 25/02/2024 09:08

Naptrappedmummy · 25/02/2024 09:06

No, look up child destruction

I don’t mean the current position. I mean if you believe it should be legal to abort up until term because the foetus has not separate identity?

Moonfishstar · 25/02/2024 09:12

@DaffodilsAlready

  • I kind of see your point, but not wholly. The distinction would be about the sentient, conscious will to live, I suppose, which comes back to when we confer foetal personhood.*

I'm truly sorry for your loss and can only begin to imagine how heartbreaking it must have been Flowers. And I'm sorry for offending you.

I was going to leave my reply to that, but as you've replied to a poster who challenged your post, I wanted to add, that the point you make is exactly my point - the "sentient, conscious" will to live doesn't magically appear at birth. It's not until we're approaching school age (or possibly beyond) that we consciously conceive of life, death, and our own mortality.

OP posts:
Moonfishstar · 25/02/2024 09:16

@DaffodilsAlready

You can’t- it’s an entirely spurious argument made to discredit the pro-choice position.

It's not. I am broadly pro-choice, but believe it should have some limits, as most people do. My point of disagreement is with those who believe it should have no limits whatsoever, and would change the law to recognise this.... and not only that, but say that you can't be a feminist unless you also believe in no limits!

OP posts:
OdinsHorse · 25/02/2024 09:23

Findwen · 24/02/2024 22:34

If you put yourself in the shoes of someone that feels late term abortions are infanticide, that statistic is gob-smackingly awful.

We are incensed that ~120 women are killed are year by current or former intimate partners.... but 2,000 viable babies/foetuses are ended and some feel that should be supported wherever wanted.

But they are probably not viable, which is why they are being aborted. Late term abortions are not done because women are fickle, everyone knows that it's 'easier' to terminate a pregnancy early, so who are these feckless women who think, oh I don't fancy being pregnant any more, think ill abort this 38 week foetus as it's a simple choice.

And again, if you don't want an abortion, then don't have one, but don't come for my right to have one

Where are your figures from?

Abortions where gestation is 24 weeks or over account for a very small number of abortions (0.1% of the total). There were 276 such abortions in 2021.(uk)

www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2021/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2021

160 women killed by partners uk by partners
www.statista.com/statistics/288298/female-victims-of-homicide-england-and-wales-by-relationship-to-offender/

OdinsHorse · 25/02/2024 09:25

Can anyone get figures on late term abortions which were not done for medical reasons?