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?

Honestly, if there were no restrictions, there would always be a few idiots deciding to have an abortion at term simply because they feel ‘entitled’ to it. The law in the UK is fine as it is, I think it makes feminists look so stupid for wanting it to be changed.

Talk about the height of hypocrisy.

@Moonfishstar so what about 26 weeks? 30 weeks? 35 weeks?

Taking 30 weeks as the example forvthe limit..... would 29+6 be ok, but not 30+0? Does it become unacceptable at midnight? At the time of conception?

If this was real and it was discovered when she went into labour... abortion probably wouldn't even cross your mind. It would be adoption.

It appears to be an unpopular view on Mumsnet - though that may simply be because dissenters know better than to stick their heads above the parapet (and this thread is a good example of why); but the majority of the UK's population - including the majority of women - agree with you.

@DrSpartacular

Thank you for your thoughtful answer. At least you've been honest and agreed that you don't believe in completely unfettered and unlimited choice, and that the medical profession should be able to have a say on the details and parameters of the procedure.

Yes, the majority view on here on a lot of things doesn’t reflect the British public.

In all honesty, I don't know. I think it's a very difficult decision.

I’m aware. It was the worst thing I ever did. What I had done disturbed me so much I ended up needing psychiatric help to cope with it.

It's not hypocritical to change your mind.
I'm sorry you experienced so much trauma, @NotAllowed

@NotAllowed I'm honestly sorry for your experience and the aftermath of it. It must've been awful from so many points of view.

However, that is not the fault of other women. Taking their choice away doesn't change anything that happened to you. You can be pro life when it comes to your body, that is your choice. You can't decide for other women though.

Thank you for your kind comment. Our experiences shape us and we all have the right to change our position. Especially on such ethically sensitive subjects.

This. It'll never happen and no-one would ever want to do it, but we'd better make sure women legally can if they want?

I think it's extraordinary that women have come to feel that aborting a child represents increased autonomy rather than proper contraception, maternity pay, child support etc. It's often seemed to me as though feminism has been fighting the wrong battles here.

It feels to me like a big con by the patriarchy to make us feel that we are liberated by abortion with the idea of bodily autonomy instead of improving women's other rights so that continuing a pregnancy is not a difficult financial or emotional choice.

So often it's the situation a woman is in or the rubbish father of her child that makes her feel abortion is the answer. Abortion for medical reasons was the centre of the abortion act and at the time it was maintained that it would never lead to abortion on demand, but it has done--and we see all the time in mumsnet people telling women to abort a child if the relationship goes wrong so they won't be tied to an ex, or being advised it's unwise to have a child in difficult financial circumstances... this is a long way from freedom. That people are seriously saying that it's an important right to be able to abort up to birth (even as a rhetorical ploy) shows how far we've come in a strange direction.

Why is it inconsistent/illogical to take viability of a foetus in to account? It’s less clear cut because we can argue about “viability” (does it include medical intervention, what level of intervention, etc), but it seems perfectly logical as a factor to me.

I know, I’m just sharing my personal view. I don’t believe abortion should be banned, but I do believe the limit should be capped at 12 weeks. I know most will disagree. It makes me so sad that abortion has almost transcended being an ethical issue and now just seems to be enshrined in the minds of most women as a token part of the female experience. It’s seen and treated as something casual and insignificant.

Not so much stupid, as unhinged!

If you feel this way OP it just means that you are sane.

So very well put. I’m part of a baby group on Facebook which is majority American women. So many of them post about how sad they are about returning to work 8 weeks post partum and how unethical it is. I can’t help but think, if only women kicked up as much of a fuss over maternity rights/entitlement as they do over defending abortion.

I think it's an incredibly stupid view to insist an unwanted baby is born, for the sake of the baby. Makes zero sense. The people with these views are also never people who adopt of foster unwanted children either, not surprising 😒

@AttaThat

Why is it inconsistent/illogical to take viability of a foetus in to account? It’s less clear cut because we can argue about “viability” (does it include medical intervention, what level of intervention, etc), but it seems perfectly logical as a factor to me.

You're right, it's not illogical at all! But it does make defending an absolutist pro-choice position far more difficult, so it's conveniently ignored in the interest of pro-choice dogma.

This is bringing back memories of when I was a student and was a Bible-believing Christian. I always struggled with some of the concepts and beliefs, and they ultimately unravelled, but I remember plenty of discussions with very self-assured fundamentalistic Christians, and even they were less dogmatic than those promoting the extreme pro-choice line from some on here.

Birth is ‘forced’ whether the foetus/baby is alive or dead. You cannot abort a 36 week foetus without giving birth. So the question is; should you be allowed to cause its death before giving birth?

"Why is it inconsistent/illogical to take viability of a foetus in to account? It’s less clear cut because we can argue about “viability” (does it include medical intervention, what level of intervention, etc), but it seems perfectly logical as a factor to me."

@AttaThat because many on this thread hold female bodily autonomy to be the highest moral right, trumping any 'right to life' of a foetus, regardless of gestational age/viability.

Agree with this. In late term abortions, they have to first kill the foetus before delivering it.

Babies survive outside the womb from just 23 weeks now. If a woman doesn't want to be pregnant anymore, they should deliver the baby but let it live. Seems unnecessarily cruel otherwise.

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.

Is it also an incredibly stupid view to believe that an unwanted newborn should be kept alive?

And saying that you personally need to agree to adopt the baby or otherwise you can't legitimately be against it's late-term abortion, is a bit like saying that you personally need to provide care for elderly people with dementia or otherwise you can't legitimately be against letting them starve to death in their own mess.