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?

But once past viability it is not about female bodily autonomy - the question is not whether the pregnancy is allowed to end (bodily autonomy) but rather should the foetus be killed first.

Hello 👋 I was once an unwanted baby. I very much wanted to be born, and am very happy that I was kept alive

Yes at late stage pregnancy you can allow the woman bodily autonomy to no longer be pregnant, without killing the viable baby.

I don't think you need to kill the foetus for the woman to have bodily autonomy once the baby is viable. When it's under 23/24 weeks and isn't viable, I can see why you need to abort the baby rather than just deliver it, for the woman to have bodily autonomy.

The way I see it is like this.

1. The fact that one day can make a difference whether you are forced to give birth (and all the physical,mental and emotional complications and damage associated with it)or not . That's what it's bonkers , and why I disagree with the limits.

1. If we're talking full term, we're talking very small number and I question why a woman would put herself through that. What is her mental state, what is her motivation, what is going on in her life. Requesting an abortion would actually put such a woman in front of 2 medical professionals. There are still requirements and regulations, and abortion is illegal (even if in name only according to some) unless those requirements are met. They could decide to go ahead depending on the situation (if you can even find two willing doctors)or they might actually intervene and offer help and support to such a woman if she needs it. This would actually help safeguard vulnerable women and girls.

1. Abandoning a baby at birth (especially in unsafe conditions) is illegal. Some of those babies do not survive.We know it's rare , but it happens. If abortion late term was available , the outcome would be similar, except you now don't have a woman or girl serving a prison sentence. A lot of whom will be various vulnerable categories. Who does that help? How is it better?

@MsCactus and I'm only alive because abortion was illegal. Ironically, my BM's story made me even more pro choice than I was.

@HBGKC

@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.

Agreed. It is a sacred article of faith as sincerely and inviolably held as a Muslim who believes that "there is but one God, Allah, and Mohammed is his messenger". That is the axiom upon which everything, and I mean everything, is built.

To even question it in any way at all in ANY circumstance is secular blasphemy for some, and you are deemed a "heretic" (misogynist) to be banished from the ranks of the "believers" (feminists).... though I stress, most people who call themselves feminists don't seem to be this extreme at all!

1. The fact that one day can make a difference whether you are forced to give birth

I don't understand this - late or mid term abortion still involves delivering the baby? There's not an arbitrary cut off point. It's about how large the baby is when you abort it. Late term abortion involves a full delivery.

1. Abandoning a baby at birth isn't illegal, at least not in the UK (where I am), you can put a baby up for adoption. Not sure where you live where it's illegal??

@PaperDoIIs

If we're talking full term, we're talking very small number and I question why a woman would put herself through that. What is her mental state, what is her motivation, what is going on in her life. Requesting an abortion would actually put such a woman in front of 2 medical professionals. There are still requirements and regulations, and abortion is illegal (even if in name only according to some) unless those requirements are met. They could decide to go ahead depending on the situation (if you can even find two willing doctors)or they might actually intervene and offer help and support to such a woman if she needs it. This would actually help safeguard vulnerable women and girls.

You seem to be supporting the status quo, which I broadly do. My concern is with those who don't just want to remove all requirements and regulations, but insist that if you don't also agree, you are a misogynist and can't be a feminist.

@PaperDoIIs

The fact that one day can make a difference whether you are forced to give birth (and all the physical,mental and emotional complications and damage associated with it)or not . That's what it's bonkers , and why I disagree with the limits.

The world is necessarily full of things that change from one day to the next... one day you're a foetus, the next day you're a baby. One day you're single, the next you're married etc.

I agree with this in essence. While also thinking there is no rule book on being a feminist.

You can define yourself as feminist if you like but the fact is that late term abortions are rare and are a decision that should be made between a woman and her doctors. They should not be legislated for.

@MsCactus ok, I'll correct myself. Being forced to give birth to a live baby.

And abandoning a child under two years old is illegal in England. Women have gone to jail for this, especially if the baby sadly died. Such a waste.

Actually the reality was pre reversal of Roe-v- Wade was that women wanting late abortions went to the US as Canadian doctors weren't doing them.

I wouldn't want her to have to give birth to a dead baby. A baby that had been viable until that point. Then to have to live with that. I'd be quickly cutting ties between her and the abuser, moving away if necessary so he couldn't find us. I'd be truthful with her about the developmental stage her baby was at. I'd support her to give the baby up for adoption.

I’m a feminist.

im extremely uncomfortable with abortion after the first trimester. I still am going to support unlimited access to abortion, because very few women who terminate a late-term
abortion do it without a compelling reason. There should not be legislation interfering with medical decisions. If a woman’s health is deteriorating she and her doctors need to be able to make decisions freely.

"But once past viability it is not about female bodily autonomy - the question is not whether the pregnancy is allowed to end (bodily autonomy) but rather should the foetus be killed first."

Yes, it's an interesting philosophical question. Who has the right to decide whether a baby unwanted by its mother may live? Only the mother? Either parent? The state (through democratically crafted laws)?

The state has various laws which aim to protect personhood (from assault/rape/murder etc). We end up back at the problem of personhood: if/when an unborn foetus is deemed a person now protected from harm by the laws of the land, rather than a non-person whose life may be 'ended' simply at the behest of its mother.

@MsCactus your personal feelings on it make no difference. If my mum hadn't been going through a pro-life stage at the time I would have been aborted too. If I had- who cares really? I would never have existed- I didn't 'want' to be born, no fetus does; I just was.

That's a ridiculous spurious argument for restricting women's autonomy.

23 weeks is viable , 22 weeks sometimes .

These discussions are a waste of time because both camps are so entrenched. Pro-choice women think they have the right to abort within a sensible timescale because they have bodily autonomy, and Pro-lifers think that killing a baby in the womb is very wrong and akin to murder.

However, the vast majority of us, whatever side of the debate, can come together and agree that anyone who thinks that it is OK to abort a child close to birth under the guise of "feminism" is bonkers.

NURSE!!!!!!

What rubbish. Unless you two are being sarcastic?
Yes op, you can. Many many women are.

I don't think that is the case, which is why the slogan states "necessary ". Regardless of date, necessity will always be deemed by a doctor(or two unless that changes), since they're the ones that need to give their approval and perform the procedure.

On the other hand, if a woman deems it necessary for whatever reason and she has no support she is just as likely to throw herself down the stairs (or whatever else) at 40 weeks as she is at 4. Or abandon her baby somewhere after birth. How is that any better?

I think the UK has got this right. I think the position in the UK is a pragmatic, cross party and cross societal consensus that abortion is necessary. In reaching that consensus some people will privately categorise it as a necessary good or a necessary evil. That's their personal right. The UK has one of the longest societal reasons time limits.

After 24 weeks abortion is still available for medical reasons. That's a matter between the woman and her doctor.

My view is that "abortion to term for no reason and if you don't agree you're a forced birther" is as extreme and unhelpful in promoting abortion rights as " abortion is murder at any stage"

What happens if after 24 weeks a woman can't get an abortion on medical grounds but doesn't want a baby? The forced birther accusers won't like this, but then there needs to be a discussion about adoption. I anticipate that will bring calls that I'm suggesting turning women into brood mares. It isn't. It's suggesting that voluntary adoption shouldn't be a taboo.

@Codlingmoths to be clear - it's not my opinion that OP cannot be a feminist if she doesn't support abortion until birth; plenty of other posters have said precisely that, though.

@PaperDoIIs

On the other hand, if a woman deems it necessary for whatever reason and she has no support she is just as likely to throw herself down the stairs (or whatever else) at 40 weeks as she is at 4. Or abandon her baby somewhere after birth. How is that any better?

Well, firstly, it depends on whether you believe there are moral/ethical considerations in terms of foetal viability and rights. If you don't, then yes, a late-term medically managed abortion is clearly better than the dangerous "throwing oneself down the stairs" approach. If you do, then I don't think you simply allow it because someone might break the law.

It's a bit like saying to someone you know is a thief "here you are, have my purse" so at least then they wouldn't actually rob you.

And as for giving up the baby, well, newborn babies are in very high demand by loving adoptive parents!

Interestingly, I met in my younger days, and have stayed connected with via social media, an American who is now a fairly prominent pro-life campaigner. Whatever else you think about his stance, he and his wife have both fostered and adopted children. To say they 'never' do this is a sweeping generalisation, you have no idea of the actual statistics. Do you really think that everyone who fosters or adopts in the UK is pro-choice? Thousands of people whose views you're assuming based on some other barely related action of theirs?

That absolutist view may be why someone takes that position but it absolutely does not justify the idea that there are only two logical positions.