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

I think the term pro choice is a fairly subjective one, as seen through this thread. Some agree with abortion under certain circumstances, some agree up to 24 weeks, some agree up to 28, some to thirty, some full term. All say they're pro choice, so it's my right to have my own opinion on what constitutes pro choice, just like it's anyone else's to hold the opinion that full term abortion is murder and the same as killing a newborn infant.

My opinion is to be pro choice you support abortion to term. Otherwise you're just pro 'in this scenario' which IMO isn't really different to the ant abortionists who say 'except in the case of rape.'

Actually, I think I've unintentionally opened a can of worms.

Are you pro-life if you agree with abortion only in rape cases? Or only in medical cases? Are you pro choice if you think there should be a limit on how many abortions a woman can have?

Sorry but I don't see your point. As someone else said, you can support a woman's choice to have the pregnancy terminated e.g. to have the baby removed from her body, but in the case of a full term abortion you are saying it's okay to terminate a life that can exist outside of that woman's body.

If a baby can be removed by csection etc and live on its own terms, it really has an existence separate to the woman. Under what possible circumstances is that equivalent to being opposed to abortion "except in the case of rape"?

What's the difference between an abortion of a 40 week old foetus and a neonaticide on the same day of a baby conceived at the same time who just happened to have been born at 39+6?

There may be shades of grey with earlier gestations but a healthy baby of 40 weeks gestation should not have its life terminated because of someone else's choice any more than a day or week old baby should. I honestly can't think of any reason in which it would be reasonable to insist that the woman had a right to insist that the baby die as oppose to be removed from her body.

Also surely the idea of "abortion" is that you are stopping a pregnancy from progressing to full term - aborting a process. That process is complete at 40 weeks at which point you are terminating an independent life. That's killing, murder if you will.

And that's your opinion? My opinion differs.

I'm not sure I'm seeing your point, you agreed that there are shades of grey which was my point, everyone has a different idea of what pro choice is. My opinion of pro choice is that it is always the woman's choice what to do with her body at any point in the pregnancy.

Late term abortion is always tragic and I'd be very surprised if a woman just decided at 40 weeks she wanted to abort a healthy foetus just because she didn't want a child, but there are cases of women seeking late term abortion due to rape trauma (myself being one of them.) I seriously doubt women are that sinister to wait until 40 weeks and announce she wants an abortion. Statistics have been posted here to show how rare late term abortion is.

Even so, even if it's not something I understand, I still support her choice.

This is a discussion forum. Everyone is sharing opinions, that doesn't make them sacrosanct.

I said I would support a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. Allowing a full term baby to die is not about the woman's rights over her own body, it's about her rights over an independent life form. I wouldn't support a woman's right to kill a newborn in dire circumstances though I would feel deeply for anyone in such a situation.

This is a discussion about the principle of the thing so frequency of occurrence isn't that relevant.

I never said my opinion was of more value than yours. I stated in my very first post that what constitutes one as pro choice is my opinion. I don't believe one can be truly, 100% pro choice if you (plural) don't support abortion to term. But as you said, it's all opinion and no one's opinion matters more than anyone else's.

This is really just going in circles at this point. I don't see a foetus as having rights (thank God) or being capable of being murdered when it is inside someone else's body at any point, including full term. You do at full term.
That's just how I see it. When a baby breathes air, then they are human to me. Therefore a woman in dire circumstances who smashed her infant's head in is murder to me, but late term abortion (which I believe is the same thing, to vacuum the brain out) is merely a termination, not a murder.
That's just my perception and what I strongly believe should be law in every country. I will always put the woman before the foetus. Always. If a hypothetical woman hypothetically randomly decided she wanted an abortion at 38 weeks I don't believe anyone has the right to force a c-section or force her to continue the pregnancy if she does not want to. Such a scenario would not sit well with me, but I'd still support her.

It's midnight here so time to go watch some Olympics with this darn insomnia!

thunks even if you see a full term foetus as having full human rights, it is still also about a woman's rights over her own body. To say it isn't is to treat pregnant women as non-human vessels.

Enghlish law allows women to kill the baby even up to 42 weeks unborn if disabled. Now there may be people who don't like that, but that's the law. However it is terribly rare.

I suspect most people agree that our current ilmit (where there is no disability - babies conceived by rape are not covered specifically in our law and rightly so in my view) at 24 weeks before which in effect it is abortion on demand is about right although I've always felt that unfair on fathers.

In what way, Name? My understanding is that at term the infant would be injected to stop its heart and then, whatever happened next, they would have to either labour or have a major medical procedure. I'm sorry, but in no way could I support an angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin argument that at that stage of pregnancy it's treating a woman as a "non-human vessel" to suggest that they shouldn't be allowed to choose to stop the heart of a baby that would live independently outside of their body to avoid having to deliver that child in one particular way, when it will have to come out one way or the other. I can't see that medically at term it would be very easy to vacuum out any child's brains - isn't that woman going to have to undergo labour or a cs either way? What right are we talking about here? The "right" to give birth to a dead foetus as opposed to a live baby?

To me, saying that it would wrong to force a woman to have the child adopted against their will and feticide is better is a bit like saying a baby shouldn't have formula against her mother's wishes even though the mother has decided not to breastfeed.

I don't believe autonomy of the woman's body is that important that it warrants stopping the heart of a baby that could live independently outside of the womb. I can't think of one single reason that is a reasonable request to make of the law.

autonomy of the woman's body at term

Can anyone actually find reliable documented evidence of a single case of termination beyond 32 weeks for 'social' reasons? It's a genuine question. Because it seems to me that all this screaming and pants-shitting about the horrors of late-termination-for-frivolous-reasons is just a straw-woman from people who believe that women are inherently selfish and vicious and must be controlled.

its a hypothetical discussion about a hypothetical situation, is that not allowed then?

Of course it is allowed. Thing is hypotheticals are why women's rights take so damn long to get legalised, because they usually go like this.

Thunk That baby is still a part of the woman's body. Until birth the foetus isn't simply a separate entity encased in the womb. It is an integral part of the woman's body.

You state you don't think abortion should be available at that stage except in the case of extreme risk of death for the woman, but what is extreme? 50% chance? 10%? 5%? 1%? One in a thousand? And is it only death that a woman is entitled to avoid?

91% of abortions in the UK are at very very early stages so it's not really much of an issue (except academically). The fascinating one is that we can abort even at 42 weeks if the child is disabled although even there most people find out much earlier so there are not many of those.

A baby at say 41 weeks before birth is not too different from one born at 38 weeks, in fact it's more developed. So you can't wait to see if your baby really has downs and kill it immediately after birth but you can abort it at 40 weeks. It seems a very specious distinction and not very utilitarian as until it's born you may not know whether or not it has a particular condition rather than just a chance it has although I doubt we would get many proponents for infanticide for disabled babies.

Oh yes, I remember that. It was appalling how they were criticised just for debating a moral issue. We are nothing like as free a country as we like to think.

I think we should all be prepared to die to ensure views we disagree with are allowed. This nation is going down a very sad path away from freedom of speech at present and women seem to be some of the worst offenders. It has to be stopped.

Mothers for free speech we need not all these campaigns to block postings, "protect" children and the like.

Sounds like anti abortion propaganda dressed up in a doctor's coat to me.

I don't see any difference between murdering a newborn and stopping the life of a baby about to be born - they are both equally abhorrent.

crescent that paper does not call for after birth abortions. It's an academic exercise in considering personhood.

The paper said that if abortion was morally acceptable at term then killing a baby was morally acceptable immediately after birth because their was no difference between a foetus at term and a newborn baby. I.e. in keeping with Thunks' position. It does not say at any point that they accept abortion is morally acceptable at birth. And as a paper it looks only at personhood and rights of the foetus. It does not look at personhood or rights of the pregnant woman.

It is a disgusting article crescentmoon. As my father was Jewish, anything to do with killing off the 'useless' chills me to my very core. Especially because everyone's idea of 'perfect' is different. I'm sure parents of Down's kids think they're perfect, parents of footy playing kids think they're perfect, parents of blonde children think they're perfect etc etc. So who is going to decide if my child makes the cut?

I guess by saying it's anti abortion propaganda...Well I'd rather believe that than believe people seriously feel this way! No one seems to learn from history do they :(