Can I be pro-choice, but still really dislike some reasons and timing?

[CuntyBunty]

Can I?
I really dislike celeb culture and try not to expose myself to it, if at all possible.
I think we all know who I am talking about here, but didn't want to go on the other AIBU as it was "too too" and I wouldn't get much out of a piley-in to put the boot in.
In this case, can my contempt transcend gender? I had to Google who JC was the other day and we have very different values, but I do know that I am more privileged; better start in life, higher expectations etc.
I in no way think she should have the baby if she doesn't want it, no good could come of an enforced pregnancy, but I don't think my feelings really come from a concern for her welfare.
I have been honest here in an attempt to be better educated by the FWR posse, but I'm a bit of a mediocre feminist, aren't I?

[basgetti]

That link that TheWanderingUterus provided has just strengthened my views on this. The thought of those women being turned away and losing their right to bodily autonomy because they presented at a few days over 24 weeks horrifies me. I can't agree that making any judgements on reasons for abortion is in any way compatible with feminism, because that leads to a situation where women are deemed 'worthy' or not. Abortion on demand without explanation or apology is the only scenario I support.

[CaptChaos]

basgetti I agree. There were a few who's stories really got to me. A couple had been given completely misleading advice from their GP, or had been told wrong dates.

None of those women were asking for late abortions for frivolous reasons, even the ones past the legal gestation. I don't understand why the forced birthers seek to discount all women as being stupid vacuous fools who just randomly want to kill their giggling ickle babies.

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

almond, on WU's link there are women of 25 and 30 week gestation.

[almondcakes]

Doctrine, in that case, I don't know what should be done about the woman who was from 30 weeks pregnant. Her particular case goes into similar grounds of the issues that abortion doctors carrying out abortions on anti-abortion protestors face.

The woman is having an abortion at 30 weeks to avoid her family finding out she is pregnant as she is going to Asia for an arranged marriage. As a doctor, you would then have to ask if there are serious physical health risks to carrying out a very late abortion on a woman who is very likely to have very poor after care as she is in a social situation where she would have to keep the termination a secret.

Similarly the situation with anti-abortion women in the US having a greater risk of abortion complications because they don't follow after care recommendations because of their psychological state surrounding the abortion and lack of peer group support. Some doctors think holding anti-abortion views is a contraindication to abortion being in a woman's best physical or psychological interests.

So while I wouldn't say that woman in that case shouldn't be allowed an abortion, I also don't think it is clear whether carrying out an or abortion or not doing so is in her best interests or which would be physically safer.

[CaptChaos]

I assume that was a rhetorical question?

I am nothing, if not rhetorical

[MooncupGoddess]

If someone wants an abortion for social reasons at 18 weeks (when the foetus is still not remotely viable) I have no problem with that, and am not sure what the difference is (apart from the ick factor) from 13 weeks or 8 weeks. It's a non-viable foetus whose mother wants to terminate it and should be allowed to do so, end of story.

I haven't read the story but would separately agree that celebrity culture is grim and the more we can do as feminists to fight it the better.

[NeverQuiteSure]

I consider myself to be a feminist. My understanding of feminism and abortion is that no woman should be forced to incubate a child against her will. This is from conception until birth.

However, I do not believe this necessarily means I should support all late term (i.e. post-viability) abortions. I don't. Last time I checked (and this may have changed since) late term abortions were basically induced labour to the point at which the cervix is open wide enough for the foetus to be removed in pieces. I think that a woman should be able to reclaim her body and 'evict' a child/foetus at any point during her pregnancy but once the point of viability has passed (which I realise is ever shifting and subject to quality of life debates), this 'eviction' should be limited to induced labour (as with stillbirth babies). This protects the woman's rights to autonomy over her own body without ending a potentially independently viable life.

It's not a perfect solution, but it's the one that resonates most strongly with me.

[MoominsAreScary]

Never I think in the majority of cases that happens anyway. I had one at 20 weeks due to medical reasons and was induced. All the women I have met in the 3 years since have also been induced, have gone through labour and birth.

Although it may be different if you are paying privately

[NeverQuiteSure]

In which case, I think that efforts should be made to preserve the baby's life (commensurate with quality of life issues of course)

I'm sorry you had to go through that. It sounds awful but, I'm guessing, necessary.

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

Moomins

My understanding is that the foetal heart is stopped before induced labour abortions?

[BarbarianMum]

I believe that a woman has a right to stop being pregnant at any time, for whatever reason.

However, I think that if, at the time she chooses to stop being pregnant, the fetus is able to survive outside her body without overt medical intervention (I guess this would be around 35 weeks) then it should be allowed to to so ie it should be given birth to without its heart being stopped.

I've never found these two belief conflicting. Maybe I'm missing something.

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

Can a birth be induced before the body is ready without sufficiently powerful drugs that the foetus would be affected?

I genuinely don't know.

[BarbarianMum]

Forgot to add: can't see this position actually changing anything cause all the cases of really late abortions I've heard of involve fetuses that are found to have conditions incompatible with life.

[BarbarianMum]

Good point. I really don't know.

[MooncupGoddess]

"Can a birth be induced before the body is ready without sufficiently powerful drugs that the foetus would be affected?"

If not then the woman could be offered a C-section, surely?

[PenguinsLoveFishFingers]

Leaving aside the political and ethical issues, in all honesty, I would have thought that women presenting at 35+ weeks for a termination for anything other than catastrophic terminal disabilities would be vanishingly small.

[MoominsAreScary]

Doctorine, they can stop the heart before induction but don't always. They didnt with me but we were told it was very unlikely he would survive induction and birth, which he didn't.

[Quangle]

I think it's fine to dislike her reasons - and her if you want. But once we decide that there are good and bad abortions, we are on the way to saying that someone else decides whether we can or can't have one and I can't accept that.

In my view, women's bodily autonomy is the only principle in question. Because it's what men have. And I stop there. Which means all abortions always are acceptable.

It does mean that I have to live with the fact that more female foetuses are aborted than male ones. And some people think that makes me a poor feminist. I don't think this is about how true a feminist you are - it's about which principles you hold dear and we will all vary in that and yet can still all be feminists. Some of us feel it's all about bodily autonomy, some about whether or not we as a society value motherhood, some feel it's about whether we should place different values on different human lives. For me it's all about bodily autonomy and that trumps everything. That's my philosophy. It may not be yours, but it doesn't have to be yours, iyswim, as long as we can each do what we genuinely feel is right.

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

Thanks Moomins

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

"If not then the woman could be offered a C-section, surely?"

Well, the issue with a C Section for a woman who wants to abort but is now under this hypothetical law of "inducing early birth" is that the balance of harm (C sections being surgery) shifts somewhat.

[MoominsAreScary]

I think it might have something to do with the strength of the pesseries and oral tablets they give you but not sure.

[MoominsAreScary]

Never in cases like mine it would be nice if medical proffesionals did try to preserve life. Unforunatly ive found that unless the fetus is viable some are very reluctant to intervene

My cervix started to fail, when I arrived at the hospital I was 2 cm dialated and the consultant wouldnt place a stitch. The next morning my consultant came in and attempted one but by that point I was 6 cm and it failed the next day and my waters broke.

[almondcakes]

I wonder if in situations where they are considering inducing anyway, they already take into account social circumstances and the mental health of the mother.

I was induced early, and I felt they were doing it so that I would have a less stressful birth experience, rather than because of a real increase in physical risk.

I was told that once they have started you on a drip, if the induction does not work they have to carry out a c section.

[TheDoctrineOfSnatch]

I think that's true for term induction (37 weeks plus) but inducted abortion might involve direct intervention with the foetal sac or uterus as well as or instead of IV drugs. An induced abortion can also have pain relief not possible in birth.

Moomins, that's so sad - I gues for you, once things became inevitable the hospital did what it could to make things easier, medically.