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

Religion can't and shouldn't be used in making laws, though. One person's imaginary friend shouldn't be able to override real people's human rights.

"I'd rather see abortions at term than women trapped by child-rearing as my mother was"

Really, it's not far from this point to infanticide. At what point do you deem the foetus/baby to have hopes/dreams/active agency? Arguably before the advent of language humans don't have these. So should someone who murders a baby be seen in the same light as a destroyer of an animal?

Honestly, how fucked up.

crescent I think the idea of personhood is a critical one. If I thought personhood began before birth I would have a very different perspective on abortion. I don't believe souls exist let alone inhabit the body at 120 days post conception, but I can accept such a sincerely held belief totally alters the view of what is happening, I just don't agree that that is what is happening.

Does the religious councils' declaration apply all the time (i.e. is the woman's mental health always of higher value now, or is it just in cases of rape, or limited to the atrocities in that war)?

thunks

I certainly don't think you need language to have hopes, dreams, or agency. I don't think it's currently possible to know where that point starts. Birth has always seemed like an extraordinarily practical cut off point because you no longer have another person who most definitely does have personhood to give autonomy to.

I agree with that cut off point only in so far as the foetus/baby can't reasonably be expected to live independently outside the womb without extraordinary measures being taken. However, as that will be as early as 32 weeks for some, I'm really not comfortable with the idea of an abortion at term at 42 weeks to prevent a woman from being "trapped by childrearing".

I know it's a moot point in some respects as it's unlikely to be tested, I'm just uncomfortable with the principle here.

Thunks I don't think I would be "comfortable" with a woman having an abortion at 42 weeks in order to avoid being trapped by childrearing. I just don't find it immoral, only very unwise to leave it so late. Still, in such a highly unrealistic scenario and assuming the woman does not want to give up the baby for adoption, I think abortion is wiser and preferable than a child being brought up in a family that didn't really want it.

tha abnormalatied were a half developed heart so the blood could pull and not push

That makes absoloutly no sense.

I don't think we need to side track into Islam. If a husband cannot rape his wife in marriage which was English law until about 30 years ago and is still the rule in many cultures - there was even a new law in Afghanistan recently making that clear - then a wife "raped" in marriage who has a child may not then abort it? Is that what we are saying as that is not then "rape"?

In practice most UK abortions are very very earlyh - 91% someone said above so I don't think they are such a big issue. What we do need worldwide is all cultures to see that girls are as valuable as boys - many women in the West earn a lot more than men - I earned 10x my husband - so that the huge nmbers of Indian and Chinese babies girls aborted every year is reduced. Given how many Chinese women are millionaires I am surprised the statistcs persist and are so very sexist.

Yes but we still don't have equal pay (not in Aus anyway)

Isn't the Chinese issue to do with the fact parents expect to live with their son and his family when they get older - effectively a son is a pension fund. Whereas daughters will be looking after their inlaws. It isn't to do with how much the son or daughter might earn, but the culture of care taking for the elderly. That could be taken care of with a universal public pension.

The Chinese situation is complex and rapidly changing. Largely as a result of a one child policy, and before gender scans were widely available, abandonment and infanticide of baby girls was widespread. Once gender scans became more widespread, this was to an extent replaced by gender specific terminations. In fact, it's now actually quite hard to find a NT baby girl available for adoption. Most children abandoned now are boys, and most have special needs (parents abandon them as they cant afford to pay treatment/rehab costs and think the government will)

So, there was a situation whereby rather than being abandoned, these girls were simply being terminated. However, the gender specific terminations now seem to be reducing as well per the latest 5 yr birth data comparing no. of boys born with no. of girls. The precise reasons are unclear but are probably linked to the trend of rural-urban migrancy.

• Breakdown of the traditional family structure whereby elderly parents would live with their son and his wife. Now more typical for adult children to work in the cities and both send money home to respective parents (most Chinese families are 2 wage in urban areas)

• Changing economic structure means girls are at least as employable as boys in mot jobs that migrants do.

Also, likely that one child policy will be abandoned in next 5-10 yrs, so government officials are getting less strict about applying it- however, this is anecdotal and varies a lot between regions (as it always has done)

..and we did just have that recent awful case of the lady forced to endure a 7 month termination against her will and the photo of her next to the dead baby in China.

Why can't they just change it so that elderly parents are looked after by children of both genders? It's rather sexist the way it is.

That's basically what a public pension would do though Xenia.

It's not really the point though is it? If people live in a culture that doesn't value girls (or those with disabilities), stopping abortion isn't going to change that. It's just going to mean more discrimination and hatred against babies and children, rather than foetuses.

Why can't they just change it so that elderly parents are looked after by children of both genders?

It is going in that direction and certainly that's a more realistic option short term than a public pension system especially given that the government can see how Europe is being bankrupted by its pension liabilities.

The erosion of the expectation that elderly parents will live with their son and his wife gives more flexibility for girls to support their parents because whereas it used to be the case that parents of girls lost any support once their daughter married (because that girl would be unlikely to have any earned income, especially in rural areas) now it's more likely that both sets of parents stay in the village, the adult children live and both work in the city, and send money to both sets of parents. How that model plays out once you get into 2nd/3rd generations of migrants (now that migrants are tending to stay in the urban areas rather than locate back once they've made some money) remains to be seen, but the preference for boys is weakening.

Im pro choice but full term abortion is murder in my eyes.

Then you're not pro choice IMO.

You either believe in abortion or you don't.

crap

there is a difference between abortion and murdering a newborn baby

or a ready to be born baby.

40 weeks is a baby.

That's why I said in my opinion you are not pro choice.

Bollocks to that Lurking. I agree abortion at term is probably murder because if the woman laboured the baby would live with no medical intervention. You might as well say that neonaticide is a valid choice too. It's a world away from supporting women's choice to abort before viability, even if you raise that to 32 weeks.

Aborting a full term baby (without extreme risk of death to the mother and that must be hugely rare in this country) is one of the most hideous suggestions I have come across (I'm sure I read about a woman who is being prosecuted self induced 37 week abortion a few weeks ago but I can't find it on web).

Not agreeing with this is not the same and being anti abortion, or not pro choice.

The point at which it becomes wrong is the point at which the Feotus would mostly likely survive outside the womb.

I'd like to see feotuses have "rights" so when a mother and her unborn child are murdered there are 2 offences.

I cannot imagine why anyone would want to do this anyway. To kill a 40 week old baby and then deliver it - either by c section or vaginal birth is just wrong.