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

Also doesn't cvs have a 2% miscarriage rate.

it depends who is doing the test. It is definitely less than 2% overall, though. The doctor who I went to for the CVS has been doing it since the test was introduced and has never lost a baby.

I've read this thread with interest.

Initially in principle I agreed with termination on demand to term, on the basis of the rights of a woman to have autonomy over her own body. I also feel that current rules are disabilist. In practice however I find the idea abhorrent and wonder who would be prepared to carry out these procedures? I also wonder what reasons women would have for terminating at eg 37 weeks.

Personally I struggle with the idea that termination at any gestation for any reason is ok. I would massively prefer women not to terminate after 28 weeks (a higher threshold than many posters have proposed due to the overall likelihood of survival at that gestation being well over 90%). I would prefer to generally understand the reasons women may be terminating after that gestation and then work to prevent those reasons (as a society rather than targeting individual women) but does this mean that again I am trying to enforce my view of what is acceptable for women?

A colleague's friend went to the us to have her unborn twins terminated at 27 weeks. It still haunts me now.

As a feminist, the subject of abortion really conflicts me.

I actually am struggling with the woman's body, woman's choice mantra. Is it really woman's choice? Or does it serve men - i.e. penetrative sex when they want it, and women still deal with the consequences? Or does it serve society - i.e. the state doesn't have to carry the cost of illegitimate, or unwanted children?

I think, unless you have a society which supports motherhood financially, emotionally and practically, regardless of the socio-economic status of the mother; which sees parenting as an equal responsibility and most couples deal with it as such; which does not penalise women in the workplace for having children; which does not promote penetrative sex as the only kind of sex which everybody should be having; where women are not pressured into having an abortion as the responsible thing to do etc etc etc, then you cannot say woman's 'choice'. It's an option, if all else is not equal, it's not really a choice.

To the OP, no, I don't support abortion to term. In cases of disability, I would repeat my argument in terms of support, financial and emotional, and pressures. I honestly wonder how many people would make the same decisions with different social attitudes and levels of support.

If you want me to stop saying it explain to me why I'm wrong.

Because we cannot legislate for every circumstance. Do you remember Elisabeth Fritzl? If she had been discovered after the birth of two of her children, at 36 weeks of pregnancy would you deny her an abortion because there is no medical reason?

Would you be saying "Yes we know your father has repeatedly raped you and that it is his child you are carrying but you have to give birth"?

Hypothetically what about a child who does not know she is pregnant? I know of a 10 year old who gave birth (early 80s), she didn't know she was pregnant. Her baby died shortly after birth.

If you have a blanket ban on termination after a certain gestation then two things happen. One is that there will always be some people who fall through the net, because they do not know they are pregnant / not able to get to a Dr/clinic in time / been kidnapped and the kidnapper does not allow medical treatment (Elisabeth Fritzl / Jacey Lee duggard)/ reasons I cannot even think of.

The second thing that happens is that a woman (or child), who has a late miscarriage, has to be treated as a suspect, and that means her body becomes a crime scene.

In the case above of the ten year old, if she had begun to miscarry at 36 weeks would you consider her a murdurer? Would you be happy for her vagina and uterus to be examined by a police officer and evidence collected?

A 10 year old's body is going to be unlikely to support a health pregnancy though. It would also be potentially very risky for the mothers health and for that reason it doesn't really fit with my question in the op. i'd be suprised if anyone in this thread would expect a child to stay pregnant.

I would say the health of the mother is the priority.

But I dont support abortions to term because a child has a disability, has a syndrome incompatible with life, or because of circumstances in a womans life, or choice.

I would support her choice to remove the baby from her body, but probably not as early as 24 weeks.

I also find it weird how the father has no say in all this yet he is expected to support the child, it seems unfair to me.

i dont get the late miscarriage crime seen thing, as it is already illegal in most cases to abort up to term, and I havent heard of this occuring.

as for the CVS, what is the point of it? is it to detect downs syndrome etc? personally I dont care if my baby has downs syndrome, according to my beliefs it wouldnt be right to abort. Isnt the presence of these tests disabalist?

i dont get the late miscarriage crime seen thing, as it is already illegal in most cases to abort up to term, and I havent heard of this occuring.

Have a look at Chile and Mexico. It doesn't happen here because it is legal to terminate late in to a pregnancy in certain circumstances. But it does happen in other parts of the world. Before you start imposing limmits have a look what happens in the countries where the limmits are really strict, or where abortion is illegal.

In fact have a look at the USA

www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/magazine/the-criminalization-of-bad-mothers.html?pagewanted=all

Sorry this is the daily fail but it does sum up a couple of cases www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2008052/Outrage-pregnant-women-lose-babies-facing-murder-charges.html

It would also be potentially very risky for the mothers health and for that reason it doesn't really fit with my question in the op. i'd be suprised if anyone in this thread would expect a child to stay pregnant.

But that is the whole point. An abortion law affects anyone capable of pregnancy. That could be a child, someone with severe learning disabilities who does not recognise their pregnancy, someonein a coma who has been abused by a carer.

But someone 36 weeks pregnant would have to give birth whether the foetus is alive or not. I don't see the benefit in killing it first?

I would be interested to know how those who support abortion on demand to term would write the law. I know that in reality such situations are unlikely but the law has to try to cover every scenario.

So could you terminate up to 37 weeks? 40 weeks? Until a baby is born? What about when only the head is out? What about if the cord is still attached?

Abortion law is a line drawing exercise whenever you think it should be allowed. I think that abortion should be on demand but the limit should be well below viability.

Some commentators have suggested allowing euthanasia in the neo-natel period also.

Some commentators have suggested allowing euthanasia in the neo-natel period also.

How absolutely barbaric and awful. Why on earth would you want to do this???

I dont have time right now to post links, but as far as I remember it is to do with the feeling that the difference between being inside the uterus and being born shouldnt be all defining, as has already been said on this thread.
There is also the idea that waiting until a child had been born could make the parents better placed to make decisions.

It is obviously an extreme view-point, and to a certain extent I think that people who make it are testing an argument rather than endorsing it.

Mellon yy I don't see a difference between in/out of uterus, it's a line drawing exercise whatever your views.

Thinking from a human rights perspective people largely accept that a baby has human rights but when does it get them? 24 weeks? 37 weeks? 24 weeks unless disabled? When the head is out? I don't think it is as simple as mother has rights, foetus/baby has none.

Oh FFS all this whining and speculating about women who suddenly change their minds between pushes and 'want the half-born baby killed' is bullshit. What percentage of women do you really think are this psychopathic?
If you are thick, you are probably thinking of 'partial birth abortion'. This is an emergency medical procedure carried out in a very few cases because if it's not done, mother and baby will both die. It's not done because the pregnant woman decides she wants to go to a party that night rather than look after a newborn.

SGB, face it, it's because deep down even some pro choice women believe that to have an abortion at all, there is something inheritably wrong with the woman. Unless of course, there is a reason they find justifiable.

I have only read the first page but.... Terminations are allowed until term.

I found out i was PG with DS at 21 weeks. Maybe 22 weeks. First thing the Dr. said to me is that I could have a termination if I didn't want 'it' (I had just had a scan and knew that 'it' was a 'he'). There was no worry about being close to the '24 week' limit.

my DH had a DS who died and we were offered genetic testing at 36 weeks. If it was a 'bad' result we could terminate. At 36 weeks 36 WEEKS I decided to refuse the lot and went private for the birth. I'd missed all the early tests anyway. But a termination would have been offered at that point.

As it turns out, DS has HFA. I wouldn't be without him for all the world.

Yes aren't those tests disability?

And wouldn't it be easy to legislate the difference between someone intentionally harming their baby with intent to kill AMD someone who has an addiction?

Disabalist not disability.

I love that sgb can't believe any one has an opinion that differs from her with out being ' thick' or woman hating. No one thinks all women are psychos out to kill their babies. But clearly you're saying that it would be insane to kill a baby at the point. And yes law needs to account for it. The law does not currently allow anyone (of any gender) to ask for any un necessary operation thay they want. if I said I wanted my legs removed I wouldn't be allowed the operation ffs.

I would rather see the whole business left up to a woman's conscience and what she can talk medical staff into doing (if doctors have conscientious objections, I think they have to be respected) rather than try to regulate behaviour by law.

If aborting a near-term foetus is repugnant, then presumably the woman who is carrying one will think so too. But I don't think anyone should substitute their judgement for hers. I see it as all about trusting women.

Teitua the law doesn't work that way though does it? I trust most men won't rape their daughters but some do. So we legislate it. killing a 36 week old fetus is an unnecessary procedure that only affects the baby and has no benefit for the mother (who could have the baby removed alive), so it should be legislated, don't you think?

There are women on this thread who if they were the doctor in the scenario would provide an abortion at that point so leaving it to someone's conscience wouldn't work either.

"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?"

this ^

kinda

though my reason for supporting abortion to term is because I thought long and hard about the realities of what I was doing when I had my abortion at something like 8 weeks and decided that because I was ok with that ending of a potential life it made perfect sense to me to be OK with the ending of a potential life at 9 months. I FULLY understand that I aborted a potential baby and I have no issues with what I have done. I truely believe that the mother's needs/rights should trump the life of a potential baby.

I also have this view in the full knowledge that actually the number of full-term abortions performed in this country is tiny.

I would argue that the woman's rights trump the life of a potential baby but the nearer to term that it gets the less clear cut that becomes as the "potential" for life in the fetus grows and the diffrene in terms of the physial events to the mother diminish between termination and indution.