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

However whatever people's views people should be free to debate issues of what is a person. It is very very chilling if we are now in a country where people want to stop that kind of free speech.

At the moment English law allows the kiling of a baby up to birth if disabled but not after. It also allows doctors not to feed someone (look up the Liverpool Care Pathway) who may be going to die anyway. It allows abortion in effect on demand up to 24 weeks. I think most people in the UK are fairly content with the current rules. I am. They seem consistent with most people's positions and reflect what most of us feel is right.

I cannot personally see a difference between murdering a down's baby in utero at 40 weeks and doing the same seconds after it is born from a moral point of view but clearly most people do.

The whole issue is fairly academic as we have virtually no late abortions in England anyway. Indeed 91% are very very early on.

The article is a piece of scaremongering antichoice crap; the original debate was about the nature of personhood. It's not wrong to discuss and debate things, even though stupid people are likely to misunderstand the nature of the debate and go OMG they want to kill my baybeeeee! Pls share on Facebook!

The issue I have with it is that I see where the neonaticide argument comes from. Realistically for at least the first few months, babies are "little animals". Their abilities in terms of what we consider "human" are very minimal, particularly in the first month pre-smiles etc. I really see no difference in "human" terms between a full-term foetus and a newborn. Prior to full term, I can appreciate arguments against the foetus being given personhood but at term, I can't see the basis for the distinction being about breathing air or crying aloud or any of those other things.

My grandaunt killed a newborn in the first week of its life. I don't know the full circumstances, I think that she had been seeing a married man and she denied the pregnancy to herself. No one is really sure what happened next. She might have had postpartum psychosis or it might have been just a desperate situation. She was sent down for this. I love my grandaunt, she is a sweet old woman now and I have fond memories of her when I was a little girl, giving me sweets and letting me wear her eyeshadow. I don't know what happened and in no way do I consider her to be a monster now nor was she one then. I sometimes idly wonder does she think about it or does it cause her pain (I doubt she even knows that I am aware this happened, not everyone in the family does). However, whatever desperation drove her to this, I don't think it was okay for her to smother her baby and I wouldn't think it would have been better to have a full term abortion. I wish she could have had an abortion earlier though.

Full term abortion involves injecting the foetus/baby's heart to stop it and then delivering the baby via cs or labour. I think labour is recommended as with stillbirth due to the risks cs of a non-live infant causes to a mother. So whether it's a part of the mother's body or not is totally irrelevant. Either way, no matter what, at term that baby has to be delivered so the choice here is whether you inject something into the woman to stop the heart of the baby or not before doing exactly the same procedure either way.

I don't see how still being in a woman's body gives her the right to have someone reach inside her body to find that heart and stop it when it no longer requires her to continue beating.

At earlier stages of gestation it is wholly different because the woman needs this to happen in order to terminate the pregnancy and have her body back... at full term, this is not the case - either way the baby can be delivered and the pregnancy terminated - so it is taking a decision about a life that can exist independently of her. I think, to be fair, one of the reasons that it is unlikely to happen is that I think the vast, vast majority of people don't see a distinction between a foetus at term and a newborn baby so even in extreme circumstances, I think that very few women would opt for this. I see no distinction between this and smothering a baby at term.

You can have empathy for women in circumstances where these sorts of actions seem necessary but that doesn't mean you need to support them in law.

I was taking issue with your statement that abortion at term isn't about a woman's autonomy. It is. You (many people) may think the balance of issues mean that the rights of the foetus take over in most circumstances. But that doesn't mean it isn't about the woman's body. To say that women are not allowed to do as they please to their bodies is to take that autonomy away - this is what we currently do. To say they have no autonomy to take away is to treat them as non-human vessels.

The woman isn't doing what she likes with her body - her body is going to deliver that baby - whether it is dead or alive - she doesn't have a choice over that when she is 40 weeks pregnant (or less - there comes a point when that baby has to be "born").

She is choosing what to do with the baby's life and body. Whether the baby is born dead or alive. Her choice in regards to herself is long past.

Whatto - Sure she is. It is still her. It is also a foetus. But it is still her.

"Her choice in regards to herself is long past." That's a chilling phrase.

It's only chilling because you have taken it out of it's context - I merely meant one way or another - she has to have this baby, either vaginally or by c-sec - a woman carrying a full term baby has no choice out in that - it's a medical necessity - delivery has to occur.

And that was explained in the post you have partially quoted.

Sorry what, the "long past" bit made me think you meant more than simply that there was no physical alternative left.

No no I just meant that once you get to the point where the baby has to be physically delivered then your choice is removed.

You may have the right to have the baby removed but I don't think you have the right to kill it once it is most likely to survive without you.

Yes, that is my point. Remove it - no problem. Ask for its heart to be stopped when there's no need to do that in enabling you to terminate the pregnancy? Not something I would want any society to validate.

Not quitre. She could have it killed in utero and not removed and die. That is her choice just as you can refuse a C section even if that kills your child. It is right we have those rights in English law.

At full term (this is a genuine question I don't know the answer), would the body not spontaneously deliver at some point - nature taking it's course?

Yes, my point is that if you want to kill yourself by the dead foeotus putrifying inside you or whatever that is your choice.

There is an interesting article in today's Sunday Telegrpah by an anorexic (not the one in the recent court action) writing about her right to starve herself and not be force fed.

Although it is important to think about the moral issues it is not a practical problem as very few abortions are late. One issue which arises in Parliament every few years is should we reduce the 24 week limit for non disability abortions to an earlier date. The date is around the time when a baby might be viable out of the womb.

I support the right to bodily autonomy at any time during pregnancy.

However - once the baby is viable, it has the right to a chance at life. I would like to give women beyond the limit of viability the option of having the birth induced early. I would want her to be made aware of the risks for the baby of being born prematurely, but ultimately I want to see the decision placed in the hands of the person whose body is being used.

I've been reading some truly horrific stories about the consequences of the recent crackdown on late-term abortion in the US. Women are being forced to carry dead/dying babies until such time as their bodies naturally expel them, rather than being allowed an abortion to remove the dying child. I can't even begin to imagine how awful that experience is.

abcnews.go.com/Health/20-week-abortion-ban-nebraska-oklahoma-fetus-feel/story?id=13116214#.UCt9c1ZlTK0

Further states are planning to bring in the same restrictions, causing children to be born and live for a few painful hours or days rather than be aborted:
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-true-picture-of-the-women-who-face-late-term-abortion/2012/07/27/gJQAxSCjEX_story.html

The frustrating thing is that the scientific consensus is that foetuses don't feel pain until approx 30 weeks, but the lawmakers are cherry-picking the evidence to support a much lower time limit on abortion.

1, 2, 3 weeks, . . . 12 weeks . . .24 weeks, 38 weeks abortion is wrong. I am a bible believing Christian (and a man). Today Susan Catt 35, was sentenced to 8 years (UK). Its like my wife giving birth to our son then strangling him. May be a harsher sentence should have been given by Mr Justice Scott.

Surely an abortion would only happen in this case in extreme circumstances? So baby majorly damaged and women's life at risk - say after a major car accident?

The abortion to full term sounds like a point of principle to me, rather than anything that would actually be put into practice by anyone.

Which Bible do you believe in chalkii? There are so many, all compiled by different groups of men over time, it always fascinates me so much. Especially the contradictory bits.

I always think, well, perhaps these different versions and contradictory passages are God's beautiful way of giving us a little reminder to think for ourselves.

Susan Catt self aborted one week before due date.

There are only contradictions if you set out looking for contradictions.

No, there aren't. People have noticed contradictions for rather longer than any parts of the New Testament have existed, and long before any of the Bibles in use today were compiled.

A woman is facing jail for aborting her baby herself in the final week of pregnancy.

Sarah Catt, 35, bought a drug over the internet and appeared in court yesterday charged with taking it with ?intent to procure a miscarriage?.

She has pleaded guilty to the charge but refused to co-operate with police and detectives do not know what happened to the baby?s body.

Further details of the ?highly unusual? case will be revealed when the defendant returns to Leeds Crown Court to be sentenced in September.

Catt has two children, aged 10 and eight, and is still with her husband Stephen, 41, who accompanied her to court yesterday.

The couple have kept the case secret from close relatives and Catt?s father-in-law last night said news of the court appearance was a ?complete shock?.

He described Catt as a ?lovely woman? and said the offence was ?totally out of character?.

Police revealed Catt had a scan at two days short of 30 weeks in March 2010, which confirmed she was pregnant.

It is not clear whether she had known she was pregnant before the scan.

However, the baby was terminated ?in the final stages of pregnancy?.

Chief Inspector Kerrin Smith, of North Yorkshire Police, said outside court ?many questions remain unanswered? despite a long police investigation.

Police found evidence Catt bought a drug via the internet which is commonly used to induce abortions.

Inspector Smith said the medication ?could facilitate the labour and delivery of a child?.

She said: ?The evidence shows this to have happened in the final stages of pregnancy within the last week of the due date that this baby should have been born.

?Throughout this investigation [Catt] has claimed that this pregnancy was terminated legitimately even though that would not be legally possible.

?A legal termination can only be carried out up to 24 weeks in normal circumstances unless there are dire medical requirements to go beyond this. There were none in this case.?

Catt pleaded guilty to a charge under Section 58 of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, which in theory carries a maximum life imprisonment sentence.

Her charge stated that ?between March and June 2010, being a woman with child, you unlawfully administered to yourself a poison or other noxious thing with intent to procure your own miscarriage?.

Almost 30 weeks: Catt had a scan at two days short of 30 weeks confirming she was pregnant (model used in photo)

ABORTION LAW

It is legal to have an abortion in the UK during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy so long as certain criteria are met.

The abortion must be performed in a hospital or specialised licensed clinic. Two doctors must also agree that it would cause less damage to the woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy.

It can only be performed after 24 weeks if the woman's life is at risk, or there is a substantial risk the child would suffer serious physical or mental handicap.
.
Chief Inspector Smith said, despite the guilty plea, Catt had refused to tell police what happened. ?To date no remains of that pregnancy, nor body, nor child has been traced,? she said.

Mr Justice Maddison adjourned sentencing for a psychiatric report to be carried out, commenting: ?There are highly unusual circumstances here.?

The defendant was released on bail. Catt, who works in a solicitor?s office, lives in a £200,000 house in Sherburn in Elmet, North Yorkshire, with her family. She and her husband, who works for a street lighting firm, have refused to comment.

The couple met at a pub where Catt worked as a barmaid and married in a ceremony on the Caribbean island of Antigua in 2009.

Roger Catt, 67, her father-in-law, said: ?It?s totally out of character. She?s a lovely woman. I would never imagine her to do anything like this.

?She has two lovely children she adores. She would not want to put that in jeopardy or Stephen. She has always been a doting mum. It is a complete shock to us.?

He added: ?We are not aware of any problems in the marriage. We had no idea about what has happened and did not know there was a court case.

?As far as we were aware everything was hunky dory and still is.?

Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2177731/Mother-Sarah-Catt-terminated-baby-week-date-using-medication.html#ixzz26jugiVks

State your contradictions please.

Goodness, you really should read the book if you want to talk about it, I think.

Try comparing Leviticus and Deuturonamy on marriage.

I am keen to know how one can be 'Bible-believing' without being able to answer my question about which of the several Bibles you believe in ...

Hi there, just to say that this is an old thread that has been 'bumped' into Active.

Thanks Kat.