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

Lurcio, apparently it does happen. No reason to doubt information released to the High Court.

The woman who is pg and doesn't want to be would NOT leave it until 38/39 weeks to abort ! After 24 weeks it is not just her selfish body it is hers and that of the BABY she is growing inside of her.

The Telegraph isn't reporting detailed medical records.

And thats is a BABY not a bunch of cells ! or however you call it to make yourselves feel better 3)

That's my point about how problematic it is to argue backwards from your personal views on abortion to a universal law of female bodily autonomy, because you inevitably begin to apply contraints.

"A woman wanting a termination at, say, 29 weeks would be almost certainly be pressured to remain pregnant for a few weeks more to give the foetus a better chance at life; if she stated her intention to take drastic action to rid herself of the pregnancy, would she be locked up? What if she was a drug user, would HCP try to prevent her from using drugs by means of force or legal compulsion?
"

Abortion isn't legal at 29 weeks though is it? surely not?? If it were down to me and a woman said she would take drastic action then yes, i would absolutely lock her up - i suspect she woould be in need of psychiatric help anyway, so as much to protect her and her unborn child. If she were a drug user, i would very much hope that she could be legally prevented from using drugs - although am aware of the dangers of going cold turkey(both to the mother and the baby so that would need to be a case of what is more risky, continued drug use or forcing a woman not to take drugs) but the baby didn't choose to be born to a junkie so again, the rights of the baby supercedes those of the mother in that instance too.

I just can't get my head around the woman being more important - i think when there is significant risk to the life of the mother it is very different, but other than that, the baby didn't ask to be made.

Also I would imagine that a full chromosomal screening would reveal a problem like Patau's or Edwards' syndrome, and the reasons for the termination would be shown as patau's or Edwards or whatever other severely life-limiting syndrome. I would imagine that people would not proceed with a late termination for cleft palate without an amnio, just to be sure.

No of course the Torygraph isn't reporting detailed medical stuff- the figures are so tiny (as has been pointed out several times) that to release detailed medical info to the press would almost certainly identify individuals.

lucyellen- no abortion for "social" reasons (that word makes it sound so trivial, doesn't it?) isn't allowed at 29 weeks. The whole thread is discussing the merits of making abortion for "social" reasons (rather than medical ones) legal to birth.

Waves to Duchesse! I know that's the numbers with cleft palette (have seen that article linked to before) but it doesn't tell us whether it was just cleft palette or cleft palette plus something else (hence my comment about medical records being confidential).

Of course with many heart problems there's very little way of knowing at all until after birth and all the circulation has rerouted properly. But tbh those babies often just die soon after birth even with medical care- no need to terminate them in utero late in pregnancy.

duchesse really? oh god, thats so sad - i thought the only way that could be acceptable to ANYONE, i feel sick at the very idea. I cant stay on a thread that advocates that :(

Sorry to carpet bomb, frightfully bad form, I know. I just wanted to add that surely the reasons given for abortion at whatever late number of weeks wouldn't include cleft palate specifically if the underlying cause were a fatal or severely life-limiting syndrome? There'd be no need, surely? Of all the reasons they could put that would be one of the most controversial if any crackpot organisation asked to have data released under FoI, surely? oh...

Personally, I feel viability does matter in this argument, because what's at issue then is the conflicting rights of the woman to bodily autonomy versus the survival of a foetus which if born alive can then be looked after by someone else. But that shouldn't be taken as far as forcing a woman to stay pregnant to improve the survival chances of the foetus. (Given the current state of UK law, the only circumstance I can think of in which a woman might get an abortion post 24 weeks for anything other than disabilities in the foetus would I guess be mental health problems so severe that two doctors would sign to say she was a significant risk for suicide - risks to the physical health of the mother, such as pre-eclampsia, are generally dealt with by trying to get the pregnancy as far along as possible, but always prioritising the woman's life over the foetus' survival).

Special interest groups requesting info under freedom of information... yes - that's precisely why I take these articles with a pinch of salt. Ask the question in such a way that you get the bare statistics with no nuanced information about the rest of the medical history (which as you pointed out, involves conditions so rare that it probably wouldn't be possible to release it without breaching medical confidentiality), then whip up a moral frenzy on the basis of it. Sorry, I'm probably carpet-bombing too, but it's time to go to bed.

Hmmm I think I understand the argument about bodily autonomy although I don't agree with late term abortions. For me it is a human rights argument. A baby has human rights I think, and I can't get my head around a scenario where the one day old newborn has rights and the foetus of the same gestation that remains in utero doesn't even have the right to life. It doesn't make sense to me. And I agree that as others have said we are talking largely hypothetically, but I can't help but consider how such a law would be written and be applied. I am interested to hear what those who support abortion to term think about the euthanasia of a newborn at the mother's request.

I have thought a lot about this and my view is not based on ickle cute babies or sentimentality. I consider myself a feminist although I've been told on a similar thread before that I can't be.

I think that carrying children is a privilege as well as a burden. I think it would serve women better to research better contraception, reduce rape, support motherhood and make access to early abortion easy and safe.

less than 0.1% of all abortions take place after 24 weeks? gestation ? 147 abortions in total in 2010.

"I think it would serve women better to research better contraception, reduce rape, support motherhood and make access to early abortion easy and safe"

Possibly you have worded it badly but how can women reduce rape? Also, I suffered a double contraceptive failure, many women who get pregnant are using contraception.

Duelling - I think that post referred to the state spending more time/money on those things, not women themselves.

I didn't mean women reduce rape. I mean rapists stop raping by legal and social pressure and by what means I guess is for another thread. And I accept the shortcomings of contraception, that's why I said research into better contraception. 100% effective contraception would be a great thing for women.

I think that what might help is if parents were given very specific information about what to expect in the event that their child is found to have an abnormality. I think that the fear of the problem can be far worse than the actual situation. I do suspect however that a termination of a child with problems is going to be financially cheaper than any operations required later.

I'm not saying that this influences medical staff but it might make them less inclined to try to reassure people that things are fixable (I'm thinking here of things like malformations) or that the child will be able to live with their disability. I can imagine for example people being horrified to discover than their child will be missing a limb or will have undeveloped bones in their arms legs and presume that that child's quality of life will be minimal. We can all think of many examples of people in the public eye who have a very good life despite such a disability.

I don't see why it's so difficult to accept that a foetus becomes a baby/person when it's born. That's what marks the change in its status because it's a change in state.

"I think it would serve women better to research better contraception, reduce rape, support motherhood and make access to early abortion easy and safe"

And what about those who need a later abortion in the meantime? We (society) just say "sorry we can't help you because we're working to make sure this doesn't happen to someone else"?

And I don't think that there's much difference in a foetus between 23+6 and 24+1 but that's all that makes the difference in current law - so why not use birth as the cut off? It's a much clearer line than estimated gestation dates which can be a good week or so out either way.

Haven't read all the posts, but am absolutely horrified and repulsed that anyone would think it is ok to abort a healthy baby at 37 weeks for any reason. Pure evil and whoever thinks that needs to get a grip.