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

The reason I support abortion to term is because (not being a woman-hating, gullible, sentimental idiot) I am aware that the number of abortions performed so late is incredibly tiny and would always be incredibly tiny. And that number is tiny enough to be much, much more acceptable than the larger numbers of women who would suffer and die if denied the right to choose abortion; because continuing a pregnancy would pose such a huge risk to their physical health or because they would want to terminate so much that they would risk a dangerous illegal procedure to end the unwanted pregnancy. So one in a billion foetuses might be aborted at 38 weeks or whatever? So. Fucking. What.

Didn't you accuse someone of using emotive language to win the argument sgb?

None of the women on here are women haters or idiots as far I can tell, are you in turn a baby killer?

Sorry, sgb but I don't follow your argument there.

I don't like the idea of near term abortion but fully support abortion on demand up to a gestation of 28 weeks, when viability if delivered is extremely good. I struggle to think of a situation where it is preferable to kill a healthy fetus then deliver it rather than induce birth and then have the infant made a ward of court.

I am not sure that this stance would mean that large numbers of women would suffer and potentially die for lack of abortion.

Setting the limit anywhere short of birth is saying that women are not the owners of their bodies and must submit to the control of men society because foetuses are more important than women.

Mind you, the first priority of pro-choice feminism should be allowing women who want to terminate to do so quickly and safely ie get rid of the 'two doctors' permission required' rule. If a pregnancy is to be terminated, the earlier this is done, the better.

Setting the limit anywhere short of birth is saying that women are not the owners of their bodies and must submit to the control of men society because foetuses are more important than women.

An almost term baby is not a foetus, it is a baby !!!!!! How on earth you tie all this in with women being equal to men I have no idea. IMO my babys life is as important as mine even if it isn't quite born.

If late abortion is so wrong, why is so damned difficult to obtain a quick and free early abortion?

And I repeat, why would the baby/foetus need to die before being born when it will have to come out anyway at that stage?
Maybe you'd advocate just aborting the male ones sgb?

I believe sgb is positing a position that I also hold. A woman owns her body, not the state. All other positions flow from that.

To argue backwards that one's personal view of abortion(s) should determine the political and philosophical status of female bodies is (for me) much more problematical.

Actually it's more than problematical, it's untenable. That I can't own my body in the same way that a man owns his body because of someone else's subjective morality is scary.

Well, if a man caused the death of a baby in utero, it would or should be a crime. You could view it that way.

I'm viewing through the prism of ownership of my (the woman's) body. That's my argument.

An almost term baby is not a foetus, it is a baby topknob you are wrong. You may think that it is the same as a baby or should be treated the same as a baby but you are wrong to say that is is a baby - that is precisely not what the word means.

What Linerunner said.

The woman absolutely must have 100% control over her own body. Of course she should. Some positions here are focusing on situations which rarely happen and when they do are exceptional circumstances in which it would be inhumane to deny autonomy. Any action of injury that is against a womans will is illegal.

But if termination at term is a perfectly valid choice then why should an eariler abortion be "better"?

I am not entirely sure what my view is here tbh. I want to agree that a woman must have 100% control over her body but I struggle massively with the idea that a consequence of that view is to accept abortions at term/near term and that that is preferable to pre-term induction of labour/c section under GA with the infant cared for by the state then adopted.

Earlier abortion is less risky and invasive i believe.

I've not been on this thread arguing that earlier abortion is 'better'.

I did ask why, if later abortion is argued to be 'worse' (as it has been on this thread) that early abortions are so difficult to obtain quickly and freely.

Er, because the earlier abortion is performed, the less damage it causes the woman's body? Remember we're prioritizing women here.

Linerunner, I see what you mean about bodily integrity and ownership, but I think the concept of ownership comes with responsiblity not to harm others - and that would include one's unborn baby (and I can't distinguish between a baby and a foetus at 37 weeks, sorry). No-one has yet answered the question why a 37 week baby can't be delivered alive, rather than 'aborted'.

It seems that the argument is men retain control over their bodies, therefore women should. But we would all agree that men should not use their bodies to harm others. So why is this different?

Plus, and I haven't read the details, but I presume that medical abortion at this late stage is a highly medicalised procedure, so really, I would question whether an invasive, obviously traumatic medicalised procedure really does serve women's rights.

The word "should" is being flung around rather freely here, but it can be applied to someone's behaviour through force of law, or through that individual's conscience, and of the two I think the better one is the conscience. Especially when it's a question of something that half the population (men, you know, that crowd) never have to contend with at all. So if there are laws involved, men will at least partly be making them for women. And the precedent is, "partly" means a lot more than 50%. Whereas if a woman makes up her own mind about her pregnancy, that's a decision by women for women.

I think that's a bit naive, with respect, TeiTetua, because women don't make decisions in isolation, they make decisions under societal, familial and medical pressures.

You just need to look at the extent to which screening for anomalies has become the norm and the courage it takes to resist pressure to have further evasive procedures and then terminate if the results are not clear.

Fair enough with regard to the health implications to the women making earlier abortion better. I totally agree with that.

I have heard some argue both for abortion on demand to term and it being in some way morally "better" for abortions to be carried out earlier rather than later, a position which I find confusing.

No I dont support a womans right to abort a pregnancy up to term.

I have lost 3 babies in late pregnancy-I held them,they were fully formed babies. They were a human being. I have photos of them. They were not a bunch of cells.

I appreciate that in some cases where there is a very severe life limiting disability that it may be seen as kinder to abort but if we continue going down that road where does it end? Should every downs syndrome child be aborted as they are a drain on the state? what about kids with cf or sen? what about a child who is deaf/blind or missing a limb? where do we draw the line?

Btw in the interest of the debate I have had an abortion...

trills so all my prem babies weren't babies but foetus ... utter bollocks ! My smallest was 32 weeks...he WAS a baby and is now a young boy.

No, topknob, the argument would be that it is a foetus for as long as it is not born. However, I think this is an erroneous distinction, because a stillborn baby is a baby, not a foetus, so an aborted baby is an aborted baby, not an aborted foetus.

(Sorry, I realise this is going into territory which may cause distress to those who have lost babies late term)