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

[Moonfishstar]

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?

Given that it is extremely difficult to get an abortion after 15 weeks in parts of the U.K., when abortion is still legal, I think the scenario of a woman at term suddenly deciding that she does not want a baby and will have an abortion and this would be provided is a red herring, to be honest.
https://news.stv.tv/scotland/women-and-teens-forced-to-have-abortions-in-england-due-to-neglect-from-nhs-health-boards-in-scotland

Women’s reproductive choices should not be taken for granted, and in my opinion, this also means genuine choice so that if a woman wishes to give birth and not have an abortion, welfare and benefits should be sufficient to allow her to do this, childcare should be available and affordable, and maternity provision should be properly financed. All of these things are more important than drawing lines in the sand about who is or who is not a feminist, depending on their beliefs around late term abortion.

Perhaps you should've read the thread, that is exactly what people are arguing for.

Please explain how a very late term abortion for any reasons other than medical, is not, in fact, infanticide?

Abortion doesn't always involve ending the life of the foetus inside the womb, but does involve taking it out. Surely if you 'take out' a late term foetus it will be breathing? You would have to end it's life outside the womb. Or have I got this wrong?

FGS, women don’t have abortions at 39 weeks, just for the craic.

However, if a woman is having one then, just for shits and giggles, I am thinking it’s probably best for everyone if she does go ahead with it? What good comes from forcing a woman to have a child? Surely there are serious capability / mental health / other issues at play that mean she won’t be a good mother to that baby.

Either way, it could not be less to do with me, if I tried.

So I will butt out and let the woman make the best decision for her. Suggest you do too, OP.

@SlumberDearMaid so if a woman wants to have a abortion for 'shits and giggles' she can have it?

Nope - unless you regard club foot and cleft palate as 'very severe disabilities':

amp.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/28/mps-bring-bill-to-ban-late-abortions-for-cleft-lip-cleft-palate-and-club-foot

I'm still trying to establish whether abortions up to full-term are still permitted in the UK for these reasons.

Being a woman, even a pregnant woman, is a get out to avoid any criticism.

I personally think the "late as necessary" trope is more helpful to anti-abortion campaigners.

Those talking about abortion being legal, worth remembering that in the UK (except NI), abortion so still illegal. The 1967 Act enabled exceptions, it did not legalise abortion.

I'm interested to hear from those of you who think my abortion views are abhorrent, and who also believe that the existing law is correct - how do you reconcile believing that abortion to term is infanticide, but not for disabled foetuses/babies (who can be aborted to term)?

It is totally possible to be a feminist and be a bit uncomfortable or unclear about the specific subject of very late abortions.

I understand "as late as necessary" as protection from artificial time limits, like that extra pressure when mothers/parents get bad news in later tests.

There is no point arguing with people so misogynistic and dense who seriously suggest that women actually have abortions at 40 weeks. I’d love to see the actual figures on that. Also, these people must have such perfect lives untouched by reality, the idea that any woman should be forced to carry a seriously disabled/poorly child to term so they can suffer for a few hours/days before dying is evil. A lot of serious issues are not spotted until the 20 week scan, which is often not carried out till 21 weeks+, and then further tests are then carried out. These are traumatic, heartbreaking experiences and not something women do out of choice because they don’t fancy being pregnant anymore.

But the shits and giggles point, wouldn't that apply to a newborn as well? If the mother wanted to smother her newborn for shits a giggles, are you saying it'd be better all round if she did? If not, why does it make a difference if that baby is 1.hour before birth rather than one hour after birth? It's not OK to kill viable babies, though it's different if they die as a side effect of inducing the baby when the woman doesn't wish to be pregnant. In my mind anyway.

Quote from the Guardian article I quoted upthread:

“On the one hand, medical professionals were reassuring me that this was a minor birth defect that could be easily corrected, yet on the other, I was being offered an abortion after the usual 24-week cut-off point as though my child had a severe and life-altering disability.”

But the baby has to come out anyway...

Well quite. I'm not clear what the reason for this is. I don't believe it's underfunding.

Whether it's a lack of skills, or willingness to participate or a hangover from when the SNP pandered to the working class Catholic vote to woo them from Labour, so the current administration simply don't care, I don't know.

But people aren't saying its just for health reasons, it's for whatever the mother wants up to any stage of gestation as long as the cords still attached

I agree with you OP.

And it does actually happen, late in pregnancy, for things such as missing limbs, or cleft lip - it's rare, but it does happen.

No, you kill it before it exits or it would be murder.

At about 20ish weeks I believe that's done by dismemberment and then removing the parts. Later it's done by giving the fetus a lethal injection in the womb.

For medical cases where the baby would die at/shortly after birth sometimes labour can be induced and then nature takes it's course when baby is born. That's more bringing forward the inevitable though.

Apart from severe disability, incompatibility with life or where is necessary to save the life of the mother, I don't agree with abortion past 16w personally. I very much consider myself a feminist and if people have a problem with that, I don't really care tbh.

What if the baby was a female?

WRT your second paragraph - I agree that the only logical and philosophically consistent positions are:

A) abortion up to full-term on maternal request for any/all/no reason (based on female autonomy trumping everything else)

and

B) no abortion at any stage of gestation, for any reason.

I tend to think that reproductive autonomy is the cornerstone of feminism.

On a personal basis, women can decide they won't abort at all/under particular circumstances. It become antithetical with feminism when they try to control or influence other women's actions.

At about 20ish weeks I believe that's done by dismemberment and then removing the parts. Later it's done by giving the fetus a lethal injection in the womb.

There is no dismemberment of limbs FFS, this is the sort of crap spouted by anti-abortion campaigners. Perpetuating this myth is incredibly damaging for women who choose to terminate much wanted pregnancies for medical reasons.

HBGKC I agree with A. Abortion should be framed by women's health care, not anyone else's 'rights' or criminalisation.

Thank you, yes, those are the only logical positions. Anything else is inconsistent nonsense.

Canada I believe. And surprise, surprise - the percentage of third trimester abortions doesn't differ from that of other, more restrictive countries, because - surprise - turns out women really don't have them done for shit and giggles.

So OP can fuck right off with her misogynist myth-making.

DrSparticular after 20/21 weeks, the fetus is given injection to stop the heartbeat. The Royal College of Obs and Gyne are clear that this is because a live foetus is incompatible with the intention of abortion.