Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

Supporting abortion to term.

676 replies

VegansTasteBetter · 27/07/2012 20:01

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
OP posts:
HmmThinkingAboutIt · 28/07/2012 20:45

I don't think its as simple as that though K999. And as someone said upthread - you do need to look at the actual figures here to decide whether the law as it stands is good enough.

If you change the law, what do you change it to, which is going to cause less damage and risks to women and babies?? Its very different to even come up with serious alternatives that are enforcable without causing problems or greater issues.

Mintyy · 28/07/2012 20:47

What do you think now op after reading the responses?

SardineQueen · 28/07/2012 20:53

The examples where people have spoken of the state intervening - it is to protect the person (drugs (well theoretically) and mental health conditions).

Intervening to force a woman to stay pregnant when she does not wish to do so increases her risks of mental health problems, physical health problems and death.

LineRunnerSpartanNaked · 28/07/2012 20:55

I would like not to be kept alive against my wishes, as another example of bodily autonomy.

If I want to be alive, I would wish that no-one is empowered by the state to kill me.

EclecticShock · 28/07/2012 21:08

Hmm, why couldn't the baby and mothers might be equal? In what scenarios are you thinking?

AnnieLobeseder · 28/07/2012 21:09

SQ - I don't suggest that a woman who wishes to end a pregnancy at late term should have to deal with the newborn baby at all. If she wants the baby out, as in the pregnancy terminated as far as she is concerned, the baby should be removed immediately to another room within seconds of the birth, and that will be the last she knows of it. The pregnancy is over as far as she is concerned.

Then the medical professionals will take over responsibility of the child.

Either the woman wants the baby in her life (and thus her womb) or she doesn't. If she doesn't, then it should be removed from her life and she gives up all responsibility. But just because she may suffer some mental anguish wondering what happened to the child is tough luck, IMO. She chose to remove it from her life. As I and other have said, causing the death of a viable human life to avoid inconvenience to others is unacceptable. While inside the mother, her rights trump the infant's. Once it's out, they both have rights. And I don't think a woman has the right to demand the death of another person, even if it is resident inside her. I say she only has the right to demand it is removed from her body.

I am speaking of termination of a healthy foetus, by the way. In the case of a foetus thought to be severely damaged and with a low expectation of survival, then termination by death to the foetus would be a painful, but acceptable choice to me. But I would add the proviso that this would only be in the case of damage probably incompatible with life, not a disability compatible with life. Because in that case we might as well start killing all disabled babies when they're born.

In a nutshell, I think the rights of the woman should be given higher weighting, but the foetus should not be totally without rights of its own. Once a foetus reaches viability, it should be given the same rights as a newborn infant, including the right to fight for its own life.

EclecticShock · 28/07/2012 21:11

I really agree with Annie on this. The law should stay as is.

K999 · 28/07/2012 21:14

Good post Annie.

Mintyy · 28/07/2012 21:16

I think if you want an abortion at term then your thinking is outside the realms of what is acceptable within civilised society and you should be sectioned.

topknob · 28/07/2012 21:17

My son was born at 32 weeks, he is now 10 ! He was a real live little baby, why would anyone agree with abortion at term?

EclecticShock · 28/07/2012 21:18

I also know children including my brother who was born at 24 weeks with no ill effect.

K999 · 28/07/2012 21:20

I think though that I always worry about the words "thought to be" when talking about whether a baby may or may not be born with disabilities.

I have two friends who were both told that their babies were likely to be born with abnormalities, only to discover that both babies were born with no abnormalities. And one of those friends agonised over whether to abort. She now agonises about the thought "what if I had aborted"!

And I agree with a previous poster that this issue is never that simple...

solidgoldbrass · 28/07/2012 21:24

I support abortion up to the moment of birth and I am proud to hold that as a principle. Because women matter more than foetuses.

lovesmellingthecoffee · 28/07/2012 21:25

I support the right for an abortion at any point, as I believe that no one makes the choice lightly. and that the abortion at that time would be for an extremely good reason.
I had a very much wanted pregnancy terminated at 20 weeks as the foetus was dying and it was safer for me to end the pregnancy. I could have waited to see how long i could have gone for but i could'nt bear to be carrying a pregnancy i was going to lose anyway plus the implications for future children.

mumblecrumble · 28/07/2012 21:26

I'm pro choice... But I agree with the current law that as babies can survive after 24 weeks it is at that point they have more rights than younger embyos. When did my right to live start? When i was born or in my mother?

Very difficult.

Personally my baby was my daughter as soon as we found out she was in my womb.

Wow. Hard stuff

mumblecrumble · 28/07/2012 21:27

lovesmelling theciffee - I expect we would ahev done the same as by ending the preganancy you were doing what a miother would do - end its suffereing.

Very sorry for that loss

SuperScrimper · 28/07/2012 21:30

I had the argument on here recently where someone said I was a 'women hater' for believing that if abortion was allowed to term, women really would decide right at the very end to essentially kill a perfectly variable baby. People said I was mad, that no one would have abortions just before birth....

then I read this

Abortions up until term will always mean that perfectly healthy babies will be murdered in the womb. How can anyone support a 39 week baby being aborted?!

SuperScrimper · 28/07/2012 21:30

Viable baby

K999 · 28/07/2012 21:32

SGB, I respect your view but in my view a baby at full term is just that - a baby (ie not a foetus). But I know that others disagree with that view.

topknob · 28/07/2012 21:35

SGB I just lost a whole lot of respect for you, how utterly selfish.

Viviennemary · 28/07/2012 21:35

I find the concept of aborting a baby at term to be totally horrific. For what reason. Some delusional idea of a woman's right over her own body. It's madness and something one would hope no civilised society would allow.

solidgoldbrass · 28/07/2012 21:36

If you don't approve of abortion, don't have one. But other women's bodies don't belong to you, and all your waa-ing and theorizing is your problem, not theirs. The possibility that a tiny, tiny number of women would say 'Oh I've changed my mind, I want an abortion' in the labour ward is just no big deal when set against the far greater number of women who need fast, safe access to abortion because they don't want to continue a pregnancy.

solidgoldbrass · 28/07/2012 21:37

I think it's much more selfish to insist that your whiny sentimentality or superstition matters more than a woman's right to determine what happens to her own body.

SuperScrimper · 28/07/2012 21:37

I think it might matter to the baby being injected with poison half way down the birth canal....

SuperScrimper · 28/07/2012 21:40

Sometimes as a healthy society we have to say 'sorry, but it's just wrong' we have said it to female genital mutilation etc. Sometimes the right to do something is just so abhorrent to the majority that we need to legislate against it.

Where would it end? Would you support a baby that made it through the canal being quickly smothered after birth if the mother didn't want it?