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

then you will be so pleased to hear that there are only a few late term abortions in this country every year and the majority are for medical reasons.

You'll also be relieved to hear that 91% of abortions in 2011 were carried out at under 13 weeks gestation, 78% were under 10 weeks and only 0.1% were after 24 weeks. There were 29 abortions over 32 weeks.

source

I really am. I feel really strongly about the abortion of children with Down's because I feel it is an offshoot of a particular test and though I understand why people do it in early pregnancy in particular and would never condemn an individual woman for her choice as I'm sure it is a heart-rending one that's impossible to understand unless you've been there, I feel that if there is a legal acceptance of termination for a child with DS to term this is shockingly disablist on a societal level.

Most people who are considering terminating a foetus with chromosonal abnormalities will do so before 24 weeks. When I had a high risk Nuchal scan result I was told I could wait until the 20 week scan if I didn't want the Amnio but I chose to have an Amnio as I would have wanted to terminate earlier rather than later.

I would assume (Though of course it may be wrong to do so) that most terminations after 24 weeks are for reasons such as disability which is incompatible with life. I know that most post 24 week abortions are done under 'Ground E' which states "there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped"

2,307 abortions (1%) were carried out under ground E (risk that the child would be born handicapped).

"Congenital malformations were reported as the principal medical condition in nearly half (45%; 1,046) of the 2,307 cases undertaken under ground E. The most commonly reported malformations were of the nervous system (23% of all ground E cases; 540) and the musculoskeletal system (7%; 160). Chromosomal abnormalities were reported as the principal medical condition for just over a third (39%; 889) of Ground E cases. Down?s syndrome was the most commonly reported chromosomal abnormality (22%; 511)"

Adoption just isnt going to happen for a disabled/premature/drug addicted (or non-white ) baby. There isnt a happy ending. They will spend their life in a home/institution where no one will ever love them and will be at risk of abuse etc. Who would wish that on a child?

How many people who are advacating adoption on this thread have actually themselves put themselves forward to adopt a disabled child? Hmm thought not.

and how many people would put themselves forward to have a foetus with a disability which is incomatible with life put into their body so they can act as a surrogate as Xenia has suggested?

yes because so many many are queuing up to be 24/7 lifelong carers of disabled kids, aren't they?

Be that as it may, termination at term is really something to be avoided ethically. Through work, I know of two couples who have adopted children with DS, so being given up at 37 weeks + does not actually make life in an institution some sort of foregone conclusion for these children. I also know of a huge amount of drug addicted babies who have been adopted. Killing a baby at term because of a disability that is not at all incompatible with life (and quality of life for most individuals with DS) just isn't ethical and shouldn't rest on someone's views of what sort of life is "worthy". Should we just round up babies of mothers who have severe mental illness/drug and drink problems/living in poverty/working as prostitutes and kill them too because their lives would be miserable in our estimation? I am supportive of lots of different reasons for termination (and recognise that many of them are tragic for the women involved) but abortion at term for any condition that could have been identified earlier and is not incompatible with life is a whole other kettle of fish.

Going off at a slight tangent here, but what do people make of the fact that unborn children already receive a certain amount of social services protection in this country? Often the mothers are in a precarious situation themselves of course and also have SW involvement and encouragement not to do anything too destructive to themselves that might damage the foetus as well.

It strikes me that is probably mostly a pragmatic move by social workers, as they expect to end up having to have a lot of involvement in the child's life once it's born and would prefer it not to be too damaged at birth, but it is to a certain extent a granting of "rights" to the unborn, probably at the expense of the mother's rights to do what she wants.

Duchesse, it's strange how the language we use changes from foetus to baby at the point at which we decide we want to carry to term. The language changes, midwives refer to the baby, relatives, doctors and the woman herself. Just by altering the language we convey not the status of the baby/foetus but we project our desires for the baby as a separate and complete human because we are focused on the end result. I'm finding it hard to articulate it (trying to work as well), hope that makes sense!

the difference is that the women want to have their babies, so from that decision Social services have to owe those potential children a duty of care. They have no duty of care to the unborn child of a woman who is planning an abortion, though they may have a duty of care to the mother.

Thunk:

We don't round them up and kill them. We round them up and put them in the system.

dueling others in your situation might have had the amino and still waited for scan as they wanted to be sure. In my head this is the sensible thing. So you can't really say because I did this most people will?

But there are also people on this thread who were told their kids would have downs but didn't.

Personally i know someone who was told his child had abnormality incompatible with life. First they said maybe wouldnt survive the 2nd trimester and recommended abortion, but she did survive, then they said wouldn't survive birth but she did, then they said will only live a few hours, but now she is 3 years old and perfectly healthy. Drs don't always get it.right.

erm, the Amnio is a pretty certain way of checking if there is a chromosonal issue. It's about 99% accurate. And even if someone were to wait until 20 weeks for a scan they would still have another 4 weeks in which to terminate before going over the 24 week 'limit'.

erm, the Amnio is a pretty certain way of checking if there is a chromosonal issue. It's about 99% accurate. And even if someone were to wait until 20 weeks for a scan they would still have another 4 weeks in which to terminate before going over the 24 week 'limit'.

"But there are also people on this thread who were told their kids would have downs but didn't"

Are there? I can't see anyone on this thread saying they were told their child had downs syndrome but then didn't? Were they told their children would definitely have Downs? Or were they told their child had a high risk of a chromosonal abnormality after a Nuchal scan.

where are these people?

"Personally i know someone who was told his child had abnormality incompatible with life" what was the abnormality? Was the doctor investigated afterwards for being shit. It seems odd that someone would go all the way through a pregnancy and several scans and be told that there was something seriously wrong all the way up to the birth only for the baby to be completely and totally healthy with no problems whatsoever. Even odder that a doctor who did this would not be investigated some how - I assume they were?

FWI if we are exchanging anecdotal info I have a friend who works with Down Syndrome children, some of whom have severe medical needs and she very strongly supported me in my decision that I would abort if the Amnio had told me there was a chromosonal problem.

tha abnormalatied were a half developed heart so the blood could pull and not push, and no belly wall, organs outside of body.

The baby wasnt fine at birth, but her problems werent incompatible with life as they were led to believe. The couple were researching funerals and stuff, they were sure the baby was going to die as that is what they were told.

on birth the baby was transfered to great ormand street and had some sort of rip to help her heart, which had grown significantly between last scan and birth.

on birth they could also see although her belly muscles were absent they were growing slowly, and they were able to push organs in and stitch up belly.

She had some operations on her heart. At one month she had viral infection drs said would probably kill her

but after all of that 3 years later she is fine.

The couple are shocked at the thought they could have aborted their baby on the drs advice.

The point is not about anecdotal evidence or about is abortion wrong or right, as that is up to each individual.

The point is sometimes drs get it wrong.

and dueling although the amino may be scientifically acurate, I would like the visual evidence as well, I mean these things are not highly rational decisions are they? I would try to put off the abortion for as long as poss hoping the drs may be wrong.

Also why are women with babies with these conditions pressured in to abortion my medical staaff?

KarenHL Wed 01-Aug-12 14:58:49
Some interesting points on here. Espec' to see the argument that access to termination can be see as patriarchal & lessening women's rights.

Just to turn that on it's head for a moment - during my last pregnancy I was being pressured to have a termination (a v.long story I won't go into here - not by the baby's father tho'). That pressure seemed to trump my feelings, my beliefs, my body, the baby's body - everything. No-one seemed willing to listen to me and I ended up giving up trying to access medical care because I knew no one would listen or care about what was happening.

My case was unusual. Baby was ill, but no-one could tell how ill until birth. An early delivery could have enabled treatment for his illness, but cons refused. And yes, I have met several children with his condition who have both survived, had treatment & had good quality of life. My cons was a bloody sadist who did everything he could to manipulate and put pressure on me. That is a wonderful example of a man trying to subjugate a woman. Knowing that it was likely baby would die, we needed to manage his birth and death in a way that reduced his suffering (which cons refused) yet enabled us to cope mentally.

Thing is, these cases of babies who are born with their innards inside out and no head or whatever and are now healthy three-year-olds are VERY RARE. Most babies born with serious disabilities die, even after repeated painful operations. I wouldn't condemn any mother for wanting to give her own baby every chance possible, but nor would I condemn anyone for believing that termination is better than a short life of constant pain and repeated surgery.

'As early as possible, as late as necessary'. It's not a difficult concept to understand, unless you really do think that women are walking incubators and that your 'ethics' enable you to take control of someone else's body by force or by law.

I haven't read the whole thread (got to page 15) but this is something that I have considered before.

I agree with Annie's solution (which I had never thought of myself). The woman's right to have the foetus/baby taken out of her body is absolute. However, what happens to the foetus/baby after it is removed from her body (and indeed the method of removal) depends on how viable the foetus/baby is.

If the foetus/baby has an excellent chance of survival and good health, without significant intervention, then it should be removed from the mother by careful means (induction/C section) and put in the hands of the doctors and state for, if possible, adoption.

If it doesn't then IMO it is a "normal" abortion scenario and an abortion can be performed without seeking to keep the foetus/baby alive.

Where I disagree with Annie is where that line is drawn. She says 24 weeks. I don't think the chances of healthy survival are good enough at that point. I would draw the line at about 30 weeks (it would vary depending on the health of that particular foetus as shown by scan).

I think the law for a fit chidl is 24 weeks and for a disabled child is any time even 42 weeks if still in the womb, which is why 24 has been mentioned.

Interesting point - if you are aborting a down's baby at 40 weeks (very very unusual as someone said above hardly any abortions are late ones so it's a fairly theoretical issue) or indeed any viable baby do you the mother have the right to have it done so it is killed in the womb or must you take the method they propose to you and then if it lives - although I think they see to it that they don't live if it's an abortion as that's the point, you can give it up for adoption?

I don't have a problem with abortion to term, I don't think it's ethically wrong to destroy life at that point because I don't think what makes us distinct from other animals and makes our lives about more than pattern reproduction exists at that point. The thing I find really unethical about taking life is the destruction of hopes and dreams and the removal of active agency. A baby doesn't have any of these things before birth so the agency of the mother over her own body takes precedence for me. If that means having the baby and keeping it or giving it up for adoption then that's fine. If it's abortion then that's fine. I really think it's entirely up to her. I'd probably be a bit judgemental about someone who left an abortion to 30+ weeks when they could easily have decided earlier, because it seems really bad for the woman and dumb, but I just can't see that happening. Whenever I hear anecdotes about women who have done something similar it always turns out that they were dealing with horrific situations that impaired their ability to cope well.

I'm always a little surprised at how anti-abortion the pro-choice movement is. It's full of people saying they want as few abortions as possible, and how they aren't pro-abortion. But I think of myself as pro-abortion. I'm all for contraception or abstinence, or non-PIV sex if that's what you want to do. But when it comes down to it, I dont care what someone did before they got pregnant, I'd rather see as many abortions at term as women want to have than any children being brought up by people who don't really want them, or aren't really ready for them or capable of bringing them up. I'd rather see abortions at term than women trapped by child-rearing as my mother was. I think forced state intervention (both legally enforced support and child removal) needs to be limited to the very worst situations because of the horror of a society in which norms of parenting are enforced by the state, but I do wish our social consciousness was more about thinking "is this really the best time for me to be having this child?" and then keener on the option of abortion in the case of unplanned pregnancy. But it's hard to have that not step over the line into coercion (which I think is just as horrific as pressuring women not to have an abortion).