Supporting abortion to term.

[VegansTasteBetter]

Asking this question in feminism because, 1. I don't want a pro/against bunfight and 2 because I have only ever seen this comment made by feminists. *

I have seen the comment made that someone would support an abortion up until term for any reason (so in theory just because they changed their mind would be acceptable I guess).

If you take this stance is it because you feel to decide a cut off date for abortions would be to choose an arbitrary date in a pregnancy and that we need legally to have free access to abortions... but actually if your mate said, "just found out I am 37 weeks pregnant really don't want it, going for an abortion" you would be horrified and because you know it isn't likely to ever happen

or

if in the above scenario would you happily (assuming it were legal) take your friend down to the clinic to get an abortion because you belive the mother's choice trumps the fetus/babies right to life?

I'm prochoice but I have a real difficulty with people saying that it's acceptable for any reason up till term. And in the above scenario (if it were legal) I'd support my friend's right to demand to be induced early for her mental health and to give the baby up for adoption but not for an abortion.

• disclaimer: I am a feminist but don't support this view

Of course men and women are unequal when it comes to pregnancy and childbirth.

Do you think that a man should have an equal view in how a woman gives birth, as a woman?

I totally disagree with your statment then "either one or the other" .
with regards to abortion I do not judge anyone however I would never have an abortion . My choice right ?
There are somtimes cases where I think well in them shoes ... Such as rape and then there are others when a lady has gone about with every lad around not protecting herself and keeps getting pg and aborting. ( Makes me abit sad for all the couples trying for years for a baby with no such luck)

Yes shame on both sides the men and women however I do not feel stating being pro choice for a certain amount of time is not even an issue.
There are times when you are carrying a baby when it becomes alive has a heartbeat can feel and sence things and that is why rules were put in place.

Other than a medical condition that has just been found out in the last moments there would be no reason for any decent women to desire an abortion so late on it is just cruel and no need. To try and make it legal for the sake of Im a women I have rights is just not fair FFS.

Also I do think when a baby gets to the point that it could live without medical intervention outside the womb that aborting should not be an option.

People keep saying forcing a woman to give birth a baby or be pregnant are missing the point or not understanding basic anatomy of a baby. A 36 week old fetus is coming out. You have to give to birth to it. And those of us who seem to be on this side seem to also mostly think that a woman should be allowed to be induced. Not saying it is an easy procedure but again medical intervention for removal of a still born won't be easy either. This isn't about be superstitious either it's hardly calling an ebryo a person... It's an 8 pound live (granted womb inhabiting) human being.

And my OH was involved with all my labours every inch of the way. His thoughts were on the plan and seen through when the action started :)
We discussed things together and there were things I wanted that DH did not we discussed it did research and in the end I did not certain things but had others but we worked as a team and he was amazing the whole way through . Both equal .

I got the backache he got the sore hands from all the massaging he had to do and so on blah blah .
I really do not think you can be for women rights but not equal rights for men to its just werid .

It would be interesting if this could not become a general thread about abortion.

Abortion at 39 weeks is rather different to abortion at 8 weeks.

Or can we even not agree on that?

I think some people miny on either side can't separate the two.. Which is why I didnt ask the question in general chat as they were loads of people who were 100% anti. I am sure.

Abortion at 39 weeks is rather different to abortion at 8 weeks.

AGREE :)

In my ideal world there is no abortion. But there is also contraception that is 100% effective, women have full control in their sexual life and there is support and respect for mothers and young children.

As it is I accept that abortion is necessary, and I think it should be on demand up to a cut off well below viability, maybe 12 weeks. As others havesaid, I don't think there would be women queuing up for late abortions.

I think that the right to life is the most basic and trumps other rights. So my only exception would be risk to the life of the mother. I don't see a difference between smothering a newborn and aborting close to term, so I don't see why they should be different in law.

I have read lots of threads on abortion before, and they have made me think a lot about this subject.

FWIW I disagree with capital punishment and strongly support better care/support for mothers and babies. I think the best way to reduce abortion for those who are anti is to work towards women having total control over whether they become pregnant in the first place.

To support women's right to termination right up until the moment of birth doesn't mean you think it's a great idea to terminate late in pregnancy. it just means accepting that the final verdict on what happens to a woman's body belongs to that woman. And if you accept that women own their bodies and are not subject to other people's wishes, sentimentality or superstition, you don't set arbitrary limits on how late a termination can be performed, because it's not up to you and it's none of your business what goes on in another woman's body.

At the risk of repeating myself . . .

• There were 189,574 abortions carried out in England and Wales in 2010.
• 79% of them happened within 10 weeks of gestation.
• Only 120 happened after 24 weeks gestation (That's 0.063% of all terminations)
• Only 29 happened at 32 weeks or more (That's 0.015% of all terminations.)

We are talking very small numbers here and situations where the foetus was not viable or would at best survive a short time with intensive, invasive, painful and distressing medical intervention and/or would be unlikely to survive the birth process and/or the woman would be unlikely to survive a natural or surgical birth process or this would cause serious and permanent damage to her health (e.g. severe eclampsia with eminent risk of stroke.)

In these cases, it will be senior clinicians that will be recommending the termination and it will be happening not to feckless women who have decided to terminate at the 11th hour on a whim. It will be happening to women carrying a much wanted pregnancy who've found late in the pregnancy that the foetus is non-viable, or that they could die or become seriously ill if they don't terminate the pregnancy.

Folks seem to forget that THIS is actually what we are talking about and these are the women that some here seem so quick to despise and condemn.

Kritiq That is what happens within the frame of the current law (i.e. abortion is illegal after 24 weeks unless for the reasons of foetal abnormality or medical reasons). We don't really know what would happen under an "abortion to term on demand" scenario. I'd imagine that it wouldn't change much- i.e. we wouldn't see a surge in late term abortions, but then, what's the point of changing the law? Enshrining the principle of a woman's control over her body is all very well, but what will happen in practice is that a lot of moderate pro-lifers will swing to "outlaw abortion completely" rather than condone abortion on demand at term, even if it never actually happens in reality, because in saying "it's ok in principle" you are saying it's ok- it's acceptable, and the majority of people are going to struggle with that.

Whilst the 24 weeks cut off is somewhat arbitrary (and possibly a little early), especially as the foetus cannot survive outside the woman's body without several weeks of serious levels of medical intervention at that stage, I think once we start talking about 35 weeks plus, then you're into a completely different scenario- where I live you can give birth in a hospital with no NICU at 36 wks - i.e. the foetus can survive perfectly well.

Given that abortion post 24 weeks involves delivery, there is a difference between euthanising a foetus that would not survive unassisted outside the woman's body and one that would.

I suspect that the woman in the article up thread gave her baby away or sold it to someone and that is why she is keeping so quiet about what happened. The drug she bought only kick-starts labour.

KRITIQ, I don't buy the notion that a woman's illness at 32 weeks of pregnancy requires termination rather than induction/ CS. A termination at that stage (vs induction or early CS) must purely be to terminate the foetus- ensure it is not born alive.

If a mother had an illness that meant that the pregnancy couldn't be continued with at 32 weeks the baby would just be delivered - it wouldn't need to be terminated.

You are right, mellen. I don't see the need to kill the baby. Why would you want to do this? It's like it's a case of, "well, I don't want it, but I'm not happy for it to go and live its life with another couple, I want it to die".

Theoretically I support abortion to term because it disgusts me that it is OK to kill a disabled baby but not a 'normal' one. As I accept a need for legal termination, supporting term choice is the only realistic option. HOWEVER if a baby is born alive I do think it should be given a life chance, and induction / adoption be the stance and not euthanasia; so I guess what i actually support is a woman's right to end a pregnancy at any stage as opposed to a right to kill a viable baby if that makes sense?

I'd never have chosen a termination but 3 of our 4 sons have a disability and we have been called in to see the paed urgently post genetic tests; if it turns out we DO have a genetic disorder I suspect I would have to terminate if I became pregnant due to my own coping limits, however I would actually just make sure that one of us were sterilised. It wouldn't be the disablity though- my boys are fab- just my own coping limits.

I might be persuaded by Induction + Adoption after 24 weeks. Certainly not Termination.

The argument for early delivery does hinge a bit on having a publically funded health care system.

www.mdguidelines.com/premature-labor here it says that there is a 40% survival rate at 24 weeks

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11356/ here are details of disabilities affecting preterm infants

The reason for an abortion rather than induction at 24+ weeks will be to avoid death/disability

I wonder if the people who say no to this reason have ever cared for a severely disabled child?

m.jme.bmj.com/content/27/suppl_2/ii10.full

Good discussion of issues in this journal article

Margerykemp, did you mean abortion after discovering that the child was severely disabled? In that case, I agree with you.

By the way, I am not in favour of Induction + Adoption, I just think it is the lesser of the evils. I recently went into labour at 27 weeks and was told that there was a very good chance (>90%) that my child would be born healthy.

I don't wish to distress you but 'healthy at birth' is very different from the types of disabilities preterm babies are likely to encounter later in life.

The doctors and parents can't predict which premature babies will develop disabilities later on, so some are recommended to/choose to terminate rather than take the risk. It is similar to the early blood tests for downs. Some will terminate because they are high risk but don't want to wait until 18 weeks for an amnio to be sure. Risk is something different people react to differently.

Thanks Margerykemp, actually the labour stopped and I am still pregnant, thankfully.

As for Downs risk, the CVS is just as accurate as an amnio (and safer) and can be carried out from 11 weeks. You get the results 2 days later. So, no need to wait until 20+ weeks.

Afaik cvs isn't available everywhere for everyone. I meant the blood tests that come back 1 in 20 risk, 1 in 100 risk and suchlike.

Also doesn't cvs have a 2% miscarriage rate. Do anti abortionists consider this 'wrong'?