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

Eclectic, termination due to gender is unlawful in the UK, so I can't see the benefit of adding that into the discussion.

If, however, in some dystopian future Britain, where abortion was used coercively where women were carrying viable, healthy foetuses of the "wrong" sex, it would be different because in that case, abortion would not be taking account of the woman's wishes or the clinical indications.

I'm just not that keen on "what if" sorts of arguments about things that both don't reflect the reality we are in now or are likely to happen any time soon.

Also, many of those who would seek to outlaw all abortion, and restrict birth control to only the most privileged use the tactic of initially only opposing the "extreme cases" (e.g. late abortions, 3rd or 4th abortions to the same woman, etc.) knowing they'll get some general sympathy for their view. If they pick up a head of steam though, they will continue to plough through with their views to the end goal if they can. Over the past 25 years, we have definitely seen that happen in the US.

Makes sense Kritiq.

Ok, another angle has dawned on me. What about fathers rights to protect their unborn? When does that kick in? We can't exclude them?

Well, women's wombs aren't permeable, are they? They are excluded.

Eclectic, termination due to gender is unlawful in the UK, so I can't see the benefit of adding that into the discussion.

It doesn't stop it happening though. I know a woman who had a late abortion after the baby turned out to be the 'wrong' gender. And she is not Muslim, or Asian, but a non-religious white British woman who discovered she was carrying a boy, when what she really wanted was a girl.

Are women in the UK ever refused abortions, does anybody know?

I don't know any feminists who would support abortion up to term.

You do, me.

And in some circumstances it is a legal option.

I hate the 'give birth and have it adopted' argument, if the child has severe disabilities the chances of adption are about nil.

A woman's right to her body HAS to outweigh that of the child.

I was watching the programme that was on a while ago where they use modern techniques to investigate odd burials.

As part of it they showed a hook like device. If the baby's head was too big to deliver then the hook woulf be used to smash the skull so that the mother could live. It was a Saxon implement.

I knoe that now we have safe cesearians that is not necessary, but I still think the mother's rights are more important.

I don't know any feminists who would support abortion up to term.

You do, me.

What, even for gender selection?

This is what puts me right off feminism. The idea that because you're female you should have rights but no responsibilities.

If a man decided he didn't want to acknowledge his child, he is branded feckless. Yet a woman can decide to have a developing child killed, and that is her 'right' even if that child would live outside the womb.

StewieGriffinsMom, I don't think it's a straw man argument. I also don't think that someone should be able to control their own body if that means that a child who could live outside of the womb gets killed as a result.

I think from
The original
Op that this was a debate about abortion to term irrespective of the reasons why. I don't think this is a disablist debate but a theoretical one.
I actually think the disablist argument is a bit of a high jack.
However, I wonder how many abortions past 24 weeks for disabilities actually happen in the uk and as for 30 plus weeks if be surprised if it was many.
I find women being judged for having an abortion abhorrent. Out bodies, our choice. I also believe there are no superior reasons for abortion, I think babies have the right to be wanted by both their parents.
Furthermore, ld be interested to know what the model/level of support is for mums considering having their baby adopted from early pregnancy and how easily this can be accessed.

I once made the mistake of reading about the process of near-term abortions, as told by a nurse assisting in these operations. Her words haunted me for a time, and I can't see how anybody could go through that process, or even witness it, without suffering an enormous amount of mental trauma. On a purely physical level, the operation seemed to have a lot more potential for damage to the mother than both c-section and vaginal births.

'I believe a woman has the right to have the foetus removed from her body ay any point until birth. But I don't believe she has any right to request it be killed. So if the foetus is past 24 weeks, she should have labour induced or a c-section, and the baby become the ward of the state, to be given up for adoption. I really don't see why termination of a pregnancy necessarily means the death of the foetus.' - I tend to agree with this sentiment by AnnieLobeseder, but I can see it's much more complicated when you consider the realities - it would be prohibitively expensive to care for hundreds of babies removed from the womb prematurely, many pre 30 weeks, many having additional health concerns.

I think we have to remember though that every woman in the position to want a near term abortion is going to have a certain amount of trauma ahead of her whatever happens. You can't just magic a baby away, that baby has to come out somehow. Would it be more traumatic, physically, emotionally and mentally for that woman to be induced early, or have a c-section and the live baby be transferred to the care of the state, rather than the baby being euthanised in utero or during the birth process and all that entails?

But lougle, are you also saying men who wank should be prosecuted for killing unborn children? Or is it ok they do it? Where should we stop tracing back 'responsibilities'?

I sound like a moralising minnie, btw, but it is not as if late abortion comes with no 'responsibilities'. How could it?

EclecticShock Fri 27-Jul-12 22:13:45
Ok, another angle has dawned on me. What about fathers rights to protect their unborn? When does that kick in? We can't exclude them?

Its one of those things where I have to say, that mens right have to become a distant second. The problem being that there becomes a conflict, especially in cultures where men are favoured over women. You would get the situation where women, who you have to remember are pregnant and therefore more perhaps more vulnerable financially, physically and emotionally than they otherwise would be, to becoming second to the unborn child as a default, and a situation arising where a mother becomes expendable or more likely to be 'sacrificed' (for want of a better expression) in favour of a son.

I just don't think there is a workable way in which equal rights can be applied here, without it being massively open to abuse - abuse that would be too easy to exploit under the circumstances.

As I've said on the other thread, in terms of human rights, the rights of women who are pregnant are crucial as I'd go as far as saying that they are perhaps the most vulnerable group out there, even more than children as there are issues of conflict of interest the second you start considering giving rights to an unborn child. The rights of pregnant women should therefore be protected more than any other group.

The thing is, that a woman who is pregnant has to go through an emotional and physical journey to have an abortion - its something that I don't believe any woman really takes lightly. I personally credit the vast majority of women with enough intelligence to make a decision like that with best intent in mind, even if they decide to go through with an abortion. Best intent for the child as well as themselves.

I think the cut off date must be the limit of viability. Before that the foetus utterly depends on its mother for survival and her health is in my opinion paramount. Abortion after the age of viability is only legal if the foetus is dead at birth. So medical personnel have to to ensure that the foetus is dead before it emerges, which means that they actively have to kill it before the birth. Otherwise, you have a child born alive with its own identity and rights and the requirement for medics to treat it. Which is to say that if a woman chooses to end a pregnancy beyond the age of viability, she has to consent to the foetus being killed. Which is a very different kettle of fish from removing a foetus without the potential of survival outside the womb.

Abortion as birth control is a lot more common in some other countries. I read that in Russia the average woman has 10 abortions in her lifetime. If you are pro choice/ pro abortion does it matter if it is the 1st or 10th?

I can imagine 2 other scenarios which might result in a late (24+ weeks) abortion:

1. an asylum seeker enters the uk, heavily pregnant, from a country where abortion is illegal. She was raped, and wants it removed asap. However due to malnourishment/poor health the foetus is small for dates and doctors think it won't survive. Should she be forced to continue with the pregnancy until it is viable? What if she goes into labour spontaneously and dies/is injured due to problems caused by fgm?

2. at 25 weeks pg a woman discovers she has cancer. Life saving radiotherapy will kill or disable the foetus. If she waits until it is viable she might die. Should she be denied treatment? Should she be forced to raise a disabled child whilst she is fighting her own cancer?

I am interested in the debate from the perspective of who owns a woman's body. Is it the woman, or is it the state? (Or a state-sponsored religious body such as the church.)

As I see it, all the arguments for limiting abortion are arguments for an acceptance that the state owns a woman's body.

I believe that a woman should own her own body, not the state or the church. If both state and church paradixically didn't make early abortions so damn difficult, there would be fewer of the late ones that trouble so many people.

Margerykemp abortion is legal at any point if:

• the termination of the pregnancy is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
• that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated
• that 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.

I agree with recent posts - surely a really great adoption support package is better for mum than a late term abortion? This is what I want to see really - since abortions are not especially socially acceptable, adoption should be - as in for the mother that gives up the baby so to speak

"I know a woman who had a late abortion after the baby turned out to be the 'wrong' gender. And she is not Muslim, or Asian, but a non-religious white British woman who discovered she was carrying a boy, when what she really wanted was a girl."

And how and where did she procure this highly illegal procedure? I can't imagine many doctors in the UK would be prepared to carry out a post 24 week abortion due to the baby being the "wrong" sex. Would be interested to hear how and where and also given how you feel about this why haven't you shopped the clinic / hospital to the papers?

Margery, in your ill mother scenario the baby can born very early and still survive at that gestation- say another couple of weeks then out by CS and it has an extremely good chance of survival. The point is that if that were the case the baby would not be killed before being delivered, which is what late abortion involves.