Please can we talk about what "pro choice" means?

[BertrandRussell]

Some threads on here, and coincidentally, a couple of real life conversations prompted by a recent television programme, have made me think that there is an attempt to erode the meaning of the term. For me, pro choice means that a woman should be able to have an abortion within the law because she wants to. Her reasons are immaterial.

Yes- I think one of the problems is the paralleling of pro choice and pro life. They are not the same- pro life means forcing women to have babies, pro choice means giving them the choice of whether to or not. It seems obvious, but I do think some people unconsciously think of pro choice as forced abortion. Because pro life is forced birth.

OP, I think that this thread shows that most MNetters are pro-choice to a point, just like yourself. I don't think that the fact that different people have different points is eroding the meaning of the term.

Owl lady - none taken

Have to comment

I had an abortion at 16 weeks because of an abusive ex.

These in which I got it was horrific.

The fact I had an early labour and felt my twins coming out was horrific

To say that the mothers comfort will be put first if she has a late term abortion is bollocks - I was treated like an idiot denied pain relief except for an epidural to get my retained placenta out.

For late term abortion to be carried out thee needs to be so many resources in place to ensure that a) the mother isn't being pressured and b) the mother is making a mentally fit decision

To add I have no trauma over a first trimester abortion I had.

To also add I am super fertile both those pregnancies were on the pill and my eldest I conceived while having had a copper coil inserted there is a pretty neat scan of a little cluster of cells and a cool next to each other.

Also that post had an appalling number of typos etc sorry!

tohave

I've tried to read your post but it's not coming together for me.

You can still believe all women should have access to a termination up to birth without doing that yourself or choosing a different path (or whatever) the two are different things aren't they?

Interesting question. On the other thread, quite a few people have questioned the logic of people who have said they're pro-choice but wouldn't have an abortion themselves because it would be wrong.

It is nuts if you do believe in moral absolutes. I believe it's wrong to kill. I believe it's wrong for you to kill. Saying I'm not going to kill but I'm fine with you killing doesn't make any sense.

However, I wouldn't remove access to abortion because I recognise that women would put themselves in danger without it.

Tohave - those HCPs should be ashamed for treating you like that and not being respectful and giving adequate pain relief. Bastards

gone Just gonna sidestep your last post then?

I'm pro choice, but not over 24 weeks. Apart from very specific medical situations, there shouldn't be a choice then.

The only exception is one I nearly found myself in, when my own health was compromised at 36 weeks, which could have lead to permanent disability. Luckily, baby was developed enough to be born but had it happened earlier ie 25 weeks it could have been a different story. As the baby was not ill (only me) I wouldn't have been able to have a late abortion, nor would I have wanted to. But, if permanent disability would be a consequence of continuing the pregnancy, I'd like a woman in a similar situation to have the choice.

Tohave, I'm sorry the medical professionals you dealt with were not empathetic or sensitive :( xxx

Goneto, you've totally missed the point of what I posted. You can believe in legal rights of people for all sorts of reasons, including termination up to term, without that being either a decision you would make yourself or a decision you would have to make.

I'm pro choice, but not over 24 weeks. Apart from very specific medical situations, there shouldn't be a choice then.
What very specific medical situations? These things aren't easily defined you know. It would be an unworkable system.

The only exception is one I nearly found myself in, when my own health was compromised at 36 weeks, which could have lead to permanent disability. Luckily, baby was developed enough to be born but had it happened earlier ie 25 weeks it could have been a different story. As the baby was not ill (only me) I wouldn't have been able to have a late abortion, nor would I have wanted to. But, if permanent disability would be a consequence of continuing the pregnancy, I'd like a woman in a similar situation to have the choice.*

That is already possible under ground ^"B. The termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to
the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman"^

GruffaloCrumble It would be an unworkable system.
But that's exactly the law at the moment!

I do not believe in moral absolutes

I think quite often our morals are very firm, there are lots of things i could say i would never do

But depending on the circumstances, and most of them would have to be very extreme, i would probably change my mind

NotCitus No it is not. There's no one sat defining what they think is a disability people should/can live with and what they can't.

Hang on, there are NHS hospitals right now who do not tell expectant mothers the sex of their unborn child. Why do you think that is? If you consider that it is predominantly inner city hospitals that have this policy, perhaps it's because women in England in 2016 do come under pressure to produce an heir and a spare, before wasting their time producing an expensive daughter?

And do you not think that these women would continue to be under pressure throughout their pregnancy to abort if the cultural and societal expectations were such that having a boy was the most important thing about having family?

And the young mother who desperately wants to keep her baby, when her boyfriend doesn't want to be a father and her mother thinks she is throwing away her life? At the moment after 24 weeks, she has a large degree of protection from undue pressure to abort.

I don't think it's infantilising women to have concerns about the impact that unrestricted abortion on demand to term would have on these women.

Gruffalo Ah, I think I may have misunderstood the point you were making when disagreeing with the person you were quoting

An abortion after 24 weeks needs two doctors to sign off saying that the fetus would be at "significant risk of being seriously disabled" - so if you can't find docs willing to say there's a sufficient risk of a serious disability, you can't have an abortion (unless you fly to Spain, I think?). But there's obviously no way you could list all possible medical grounds for late-term abortion, unless you had some catch-all term like incompatible with life, unlikely to survive beyond infancy, or similar.

I don't think it's infantilising women to have concerns about the impact that unrestricted abortion on demand to term would have on these women.

Surely that is a problem that needs to be tackled. However, I do not think it should be addressed by forcing all women to give birth.

There are lots of things that prevent women from having as many children as they want. Lack of adequate men, lack of money, no affordable childcare, discrimination of mothers on the job market ... I don't think women should be made to have children with jerks, suffer poverty and joblessness. These reasons why women decide to have an abortions are still there when a baby is born.

Same with misogynist families. They will treat the daughter in law like shit for giving birth to a girl. Yeah, thanks to restrictive abortions laws she got to have a baby - but at what price? (And that is assuming the family won't force her to have a dangerous illegal abortion.)

And what price does the nation pay for getting to indulge it's misogyny when a generation of girls (who might well have had perfectly happy lives) are erased out of existence vest? There's no point giving women rights if they're screened out of existence.

And no, it's not necessarily better off to not exist. Many women live in circumstances that are not ideal but still offer a reasonable quality of life and I very much doubt they'd rather not exist.

Many people will not change. They'll always be sexist if given a choice. You can't give them the choice first (as you would be doing in giving oppressed women a 'choice') and try to change them afterwards or when the moon is made of cheese.

But Citrus the reason why many women choose tfmr is to save their baby suffering. "Incompatible with life" and suffering are not always one and the same. Being put through many operations and pain is not something everyone wants for their children. It is not as clear cut as a catch all term I'm afraid. Also, I doubt anyone would struggle to find two doctors to sign off on it as if a doctor has personal difficulties with it they simply refer you to a doctor who doesn't. Personally, when I had my TFMR they barely even looked at the forms before signing them and I never even saw the second doctor. Doctors are generally (anecdotally admittedly) on the women's side or they find someone who can be.

Also the two doctor thing stands no matter when the termination takes place. Mine was at 16 weeks.

The two doctor ruling stands whatever the woman's reason for termination.

A women terminating a pregnancy at any point without the permission of two doctors is committing a criminal offence.

I am not okay with that. I do not believe that women's pregnancy choices should be criminalised.