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

People who argue for forcing women to give birth seem to forget what giving birth involves.

It is not a "null" scenario - giving birth is the most dangerous thing the average UK woman will do in her lifetime. It carries risks of death / serious injury. then there are a the "minor" things that are very common eg incontinence, loss of sexual response , pain during sex, just loads of things.

Saying women should "just" have the baby and give it up overlooks both the physical risks the woman has to take to achieve that and the emotional and psychological risks of having to carry a baby to term, give birth and then give the baby away.

Again, to me, these type of posts seem very clearly to put the life of a foetus above the life of the pregnant woman.

Sardine, once you have reached 24 weeks gestation, you HAVE to give birth. The foetus is not going to just magically disappear from the woman's body. I don't understand your argument.

duch - you can make the labour much more painfree (and possibly safer, I don't know?), though. You are right, I know, I just wanted to say that.

helxi - don't see the irony, personally. You think mothers and women who have abortions are two mutually exclusive categories? Wrong.

On this, Caitlin Moran is actually rather good.

Oh and the people talking about women having multiple abortions / using abortion as a contraceptive.

Women who are doing this... well firstly I would wonder why it is the case - is there something going on in their life that means they are not using contraception? Abusive partner, drug or alcohol misuse, learning disabilities? - and address that. I am sure that there are some women who see putting themselves through multiple medical procedures as contraception but for many there will be other reasons. To believe that women are emotionless, horrid things who will have no compunction about having multiple abortions is again a pretty vile thing to imagine about women...

Anyway - women who are doing this are going to have very early abortions. They know they don't want a baby - they are using abortion as contraception - they will be quick to present for abortion. They aren't going to wait until 30 weeks or something and put their body through all that stress for no apparent reason are they.

Many of these comments betray a terribly negative attitude towards women, overlook the risks to women of pregnancy and birth, including the risk of death, and give an underlying impression that actually the "baby" is way more important than the woman.

duchesse I thought they broke the foetus up into pieces or something?

But fair enough if you have to give birth. Still giving birth to a 24 week size is going to be very different to giving birth to a full term size.

And TBH if that is the case, it's even more misogynistic to imagine that there will be significant numbers of women who will choose to have the foetus killed and then give birth to it without a pretty bloody good reason.

Honestly the views on this thread you would think the average UK woman had the emotional makeup of Jeffery Dahmer

Linerunner Your point re individual vs state is interesting, but isn't there an argument that abortion requires action on behalf of the state - i.e. the state is sanctioning the termination because most healthcare is funded/ carried out by the state so they have to be involved, either in saying "Yes, ok" or "No, we can't have any part in this"? Even if we take the state out of it, late terminations require action by a third party so can never be solely a decision by the woman herself.

Re late terminations on grounds of disability, I think unfortunately, these will always depend on judgment re quality and duration of life, where cleft lip is at one end of the spectrum (and to be honest I find that impossible to justify) and a foetus who is expected to live for hours/days in tremendous pain (i.e. has disabilities which doctors know are not comptable with life) at the other. I do think it's possible to say that in those 2 situations, a late termination can be viewed differently without being disablist.

Anyone who starts saying things like 'baby killers' immediately makes me ignore anything they say.

If you want a debate, then avoid the emotive words, as you are abusive and rude. You can make a compelling argument without words that may actually cause women a great deal of distress.

Unless of course thats what you want to do, which speaks volumes for the contempt with which your opinion should be treated.

I could understand a woman perhaps wanting the baby removed but not killed at 37 weeks , that's horrifying It quite concerning the mindset of someone who would even consider that tbh.

lastnerve Well potentially that's another issue. Unless in a situation whereby the woman knew the baby would die anyway, I think it would be the duty of the medical establishment to at least consider whether someone making that decision (i.e. to kill an at-term foetus in the womb and then give birth to it) would be considered of sound mind.

As sardine rightly points out, most women are not psychopaths/ deliberately cruel. You'd have to be in a pretty dark place to consider that as your best course of action I think.

Feminist baby-killers vs mothers, is it?

When it comes to abortion I think that in many cases having had a baby yourself helps you to understand what a big undertaking it is, and to realise that there is no way that it is anything someone should undergo unless they are completely prepared and willing.

I support abortion on demand, because I think it is better that 100 abortions happen for wrong or frivolous reasons than that any one woman is prevented from having one by an arbitrary rule.

There is a scene in the French film Polisse which shows what appears to be a late abortion. The girl was a child incest victim. It is very traumatic but I really recommend watching it.

I think some posters seem to be confusing the viability point (24 weeks) with the blurry line of when a foetus/baby would be born healthy. 24 weeks is the 'viability point' because (only with extremely intensive medical and possibly surgical intervention) at that point 50% of babies would survive. Even of the 50% who survive 90% of them will have significant disabilities eg blind, deaf, moderate to severe learning disabilities, poor immune system etc. it is not a happy fairy tale ending and the law allows the mother the choice whether to risk subjecting a potential child to this (and often protecting her existing children from the burden of being lifelong carers).

SardineQueen I don't see how being induced at 30 weeks is 'forced to give birth'.

If the options are continue with an unwanted pregnancy, have a late abortion or be induced early then none of them are great, but if you wanted to end your pregnancy I don't see why induction/c-section would automatically be worse than abortion. Having the option to give birth early seems to me much better than being forced to stay pregnant.

RichManPoorManBeggarmanThief Sat 28-Jul-12 12:43:06
Linerunner Your point re individual vs state is interesting, but isn't there an argument that abortion requires action on behalf of the state

In asking 'Who owns a woman's body?', and hoping that the answer is 'The woman herself,' I would suppose that all actions carried out by the state confirm that ownership.

Totally agree with trills. These debates always go the same way. Abortion is frowned upon because a foetus is more important than a woman. Sigh. Then you get the well abortion might be ok for some disabilities argument to which the response is always - gasp that's disablist then it seems like that's supposedly worse than an abortion for other reasons fgs.

I has an abortion at 10 weeks in the past. I have a dd and I'm pregnant with dd2. I support abortion on demand.

I agree totally that the women has dominion over her own body. But the foetus also has dominion over its body and the right to life. As long as the life of the foetus depends on the body of the woman, her rights trump its rights, even to life.

But once that foetus is capable of survival in its own right, I don't believe the women has any further right to dictate whether it lives or dies, only whether it remains in her body or not. She can have it removed, but why should she have the right demand its unnecessary death, any more than any other parent can decide to kill their children? The foetus needs to come out, alive or dead. Surely alive is preferable?

Many late-term abortion foetuses would not survive, fair enough. But some would, and they deserve this chance. And late-term abortions are rare enough that I don't believe this would result in a huge burden on the state in terms of medical costs. As for killing the foetus just to it will be 'easier' for the woman to deliver, that's an abhorrent idea.

Once the foetus is out, I don't see why the women should have any more say than the state as to whether it lives or dies.

Wtf has having an abortion at 10 weeks got to do with anything?

annie that sounds logical until you remember the situation in the US where a woman is in prison for causing the death of her foetus by trying to commit suicide.

I don't think there can be any point where the foetus is still inside the woman where its "right to life" becomes as important as the woman's right to bodily autonomy. As otherwise women who behave in any way that might harm the foetus after this arbitrary line will be subject to prosecution for child abuse / neglect etc.

A foetus residing inside the body of a woman should not have equal rights to the woman herself. It's a slippery slippery slope.

I agree with trills as well

Especially this

"When it comes to abortion I think that in many cases having had a baby yourself helps you to understand what a big undertaking it is, and to realise that there is no way that it is anything someone should undergo unless they are completely prepared and willing."

SardineQueen - that's why the foetus should have no rights until it is outside the woman. But equally, the foetus is not a part of the woman, even if it is resident inside her. Which is why I don't think the woman has a right to kill it unless the simple act of removing it from her body causes its death.

As for the crazy laws in the States, well, that's another thread altogether!

The simple act of removing it from her body at a sooner point will have more risk of death / disability to the baby than the simple act of removing it later though.

And of course the simple act of removing it at term will have the best outcome for the baby.

So how do you balance that?

"When it comes to abortion I think that in many cases having had a baby yourself helps you to understand what a big undertaking it is, and to realise that there is no way that it is anything someone should undergo unless they are completely prepared and willing."

Utterly agree. Since having DS I am far more pro-choice than I was before. Going through pregnancy and childbirth shows you what an absolutely major life changing experience it is, something which really shouldn't be taken lightly, and definitely not something which should be inflicted on someone who doesn't want it.

If, by the ultimate conclusion of feminist logic, a women is allowed to have a fully-viable 9 month old fetus terminated for a non-medical reason then feminism ultimately sanctions murder, and by logical extension, infanticide (see Dr Francesca Minerva's work). Don't try and justify your positions by conflating this issue with aborting earlier fetuses with the potential for autonomous life. That is an unpleasant but entirely different issue.

And I don't care how many people my reasoning upsets and subsequently complain to MN HQ. People don't want to discuss the morality of killing fully-developed babies and by extension newborns, as that is what we're fundamentally talking about, because it might upset them? God forbid I transgress your Human Rights not to be emotionally challenged by pointing out the flaws in your belief system.

If you want me to stop saying it explain to me why I'm wrong. Although I'm guessing the reason some are upset in the first place is because they can't morally justify their cheerleading this particular piece murderous ideology.