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

An indian woman hiring out her womb to transform her family is given much more power than many of those women have. Her position is no different, but in fact a bit more honest and morally purer than a British housewive who provides her husband with sex, child care and cleaning services in return for his keeping her in food and housing. Housewives are in effect paid to breed except they are in a sense owned financially by their man. Those who are paid to breed with the freedom of being paid by someone else are in a better position. Women should be allowed to exploit their erotic capital and the areas where they have things men don't.

Is there any debate you can't manage to twist into a bash against SAHMs?

Honestly, I'm kind of impressed.

'Do you support full term abortion?'

'WELL compared to the misery of the SAHMs, it's not THAT bad!!'

Now I'm amused Mini

Dont know if it is a mumsnet myth that xenia has an island but I can see why self governance might appeal...

Thanks purple, my screen now has sprinkles of a hot drink on it!

Is Xenia STILL SAHM bashing?? Still lololing at that post - I am a brood mare!!!!!l FFS So what about SAHMs who choose to stay at home even thouh their partners would rather they went back to work? tut tut

Sorry, not the issue here but good lord!

hey, at least we all went from something horrible to a good laugh!

Would it be in poor taste to say I find brood mares the most attractive of all horses?

Let's forget Indian surrogates for a second and even abortion. Why CAN'T a woman be paid to be a surrogate in the UK? I would do it

I don't think women can be paid here in Aus either. I'd like to know the answer too.

They can't be because men make the laws and this is one area women might have power and money where men can't so they stop it. There is a whole section in Hakim's book about erotic capital about that issue and related ones.

Mumsnet should lobby to enable women to be paid surrogates. It's a woman's issue. Why shouldn't we be paid if we want to be and can reach a bargain. You could easily include a requirement the both sides take legal advice etc

Karen, your situation sounds very sad, I think this is why women need to demand autonomy, whether that be the right to have a baby or an abortion. For too long men have sought to control reproduction through rape, technology, economics, marriage, medicine...........experts even tell us when and how we should give birth.

I also wanted to say, thank you Lurking you have really made me think about the issue of late abortion, although I favour early access I think what Julia said is right. I think Annie makes some interesting points too because all options should be available, all help offered, even if that means fundamental changes to the way society operates but at the end of the day, the decision must rest with the woman.

As for Indian surrogates winning the lottery of life because richer MEN pay to hire their wombs, whilst these same men can pick and choose and have female foetuses aborted. It is just a sick malaise of a society riddled with class inequality and huge levels of poverty, disease and discrimination against women.

Xenia, rather than reading Catherine Hakim Erotisches Kapital, you would find greater insight reading Das Kapital !! at least he really did understand economics and is credited with having developed some excellent social theories.

It's 4:30AM here, and as such my insomnia is making me a little emotional.

I just want to say I'm sorry if anyone viewed my story as being written to guilt trip, I really didn't mean it that way.

I'd be really surprised, Lurking, if anyone thought that. You told your experience in a measured, honest and balanced way. It needs to be told.

Purplesprouting, I clearly remember Xenia commenting at some point not too long ago that had she been married and not working, she would never have been able to afford her island, so I think it exists.

As for fatherhood, suffice to say, my husband (white, middle class professional male) has still not got over the fact that the midwives and health visitors clearly addressed themselves to me in the process of having a baby. I honestly think until women have equality in all other areas of life, Mini has a point that the emphasis on fathers serves in some ways to disempower women in the one area which they traditionally have control over.

OT but I have to ask.

Xenia, do you own an island?!

If you do, get off MN and go have a coconut martini! is not jealous

Lurking, i am personally against abortion (by personally i mean i wouldnt do it) but i would never ever judge you or think you were guilt tripping by sharing your story. I don't judge other women by the choices they make. We all have our opionions on what is right and wrong, those opinions are easy to have in theory, until we find ourselves in such a position that those opinions/principals are put the the test. I cannot say 100% that i would not have made the same decision that you did.

Yes, I do own an island. I wanted one when I was 10 and I bought it in 2005. It is near the equator but it's primitive, not luxury. Hopefully this summer I am having a small one room "hut" built on it if my man out there does what he keeps saying he will. 25 acres of beach, ancient rain forest, a grassy area, trees. It's lovely.

Women can achieve anything they set their minds to and earn whatever they set as their goals but too many of them choose to limit their ambitions and have not enough confidence in their own abilities (or don't marry a man rich enough to buy them an island).

I don't know if I would have an abortion or not. When I was pregnant with twins I had no tests done as I would not have aborted them anyway and it is harder with twins as if you get rid of one the other may die too. My baby sister died at 3 weeks and had down's and heart disease and I do believe we were lucky she died. I know any mumsnetter with a loved down's child will hate that statement but that's how I feel, sad though it was at the time and in the UK you can lawfully abort a down's baby even at 42 weeks if it is still in utero.

Thank you summer and Lucy :) I just got paranoid (I overthink) that maybe because of my age at the time I was depriving people of the choice to respectfully disagree with me. I'm glad that's not true!

I understand the logic of aborting a child with a disability like for example, Tasax (not sure if that can be discovered in utero though, I know I can genetically test for it) where you know the life of your child will be nothing but endless pain until they die, but why is it okay to abort a Downs baby at 42 weeks but not a 'normal' baby? I don't understand?

'why is it okay to abort a Downs baby at 42 weeks but not a 'normal' baby? I don't understand?'

I don't know, I think it comes back to society's attitudes towards disability, but I also think it is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy with routine screening (although that would pick Down's up earlier), it gives the choice and creates a pressure to do something to avoid what is percieved as a problem.

I personally didn't have any screening as I would not have terminated, which was a personal decision based on my own experiences.

Xenia, I'm not sure about wanting an island, I recently realised I'd love a little cottage by the sea with a garden I can tend and time to tend it. It needs to wait until the DCs have grown and left home, though.

This thread is really making me challenge my assumptions, and now I?m leaning towards ?as early as possible, as late as necessary?. (Although I can also see why in an ideal society abortion would very rarely need to even be considered.)

If I understand correctly the argument against early induction is that a woman prepared to have her baby adopted would wait the extra weeks or months, whereas a woman who wanted her pregnancy to end as soon as possible would not consider adoption, even if she didn?t have to carry to term. Have I got that right?

If that?s the case, I can certainly see why early delivery would not be a helpful alternative.

article on surrogacy

From what I can see on the web one of the main reason you can't pay a surrogate in this country anything more than reasonable expenses incurred is to stop it becoming exploitative.

I do see that there could be perfectly sensible paid surrogate arrangements but the sale of children is fundamentally unethical. The current legal barriers to pay possibly protects both parties as a more altruistic surrogacy is maybe more likely to work without exploitation.

The market is obviously exploitative in many countries that allow pay. Here you can have expenses, including compensation for loss of pay so don't lose out as such.

I used to work with children and young people with profound LDs. The downs children were great, they enjoyed life, the laughed, they all had communication skills. On the other hand the children with autism lacked communication, rarely smiled, seldom laughed and were often tormented with angst. Would I abort a child with Down, no absolutely not. Although you can test for downs there are no tests for ASD, and these children made little developmental progress compared to the Downs children.

"my husband (white, middle class professional male) has still not got over the fact that the midwives and health visitors clearly addressed themselves to me in the process of having a baby" very funny!

Just want to share one of my all time favourite pictures. (One of my distant cousins has Downs. She is probably the kindest person I've ever met.)

This picture always cheers me up and melts my heart.

sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/529601_10150989159728568_391085755_n.jpg

I am horrified by some of the posts on this thread.

In the main, I agree with blackcats, though I do feel 24 weeks as the age of viability is a little low as though babies can and do survive at this gestation, it is only with recourse to extraordinary measures.

To me, if a baby/foetus whatever you want to call it can take an independent breath outside of the womb and there is no reason to believe it wouldn't live a full and healthy life, it is morally and ethically wrong in the extreme to kill it. The idea it would be "horrible" to force adoption but fine to deny what is actually a child of life is just nonsensical. The idea that suggesting it is wrong to seek to actively end the life of a being that responds to touch, movement and its mother's voice is one step on a slippery slope to preventing women from driving or playing sport in late pregnancy boggles the mind. I don't care if late term abortion for social reasons is a myth or not, if a baby can survive outside of the womb without extraordinary medical measures it is a person, it's a baby and that has sod all to do with woman's rights.

And don't get me started on the idea of terminating a full term foetus with cleft lip and palate or down's....