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.

To me, pro-choice starts before the pregnancy. There are very few abortions of pregnancies that started out as wanted pregnancies.

A woman should have the right to abort an unwanted pregnancy, but she should also have the right to not get pregnant in the first place.

This is important because, guess what? The (limited) legality of abortion can also be used by men to coerce women into unsafe sex, and then used to justify not taking responsibility. ("But I wanted her to have an abortion!", he whined).

Legal contraception is of course part of this, but there also need to be better laws against rape. Financial independence for women. And so on.

My definition of pro-choice is that abortion should be legal right up until birth. Because a woman's body is her own.

I am quite sure that almost no woman would ever decide to have an abortion at a time when she could just as well give birth. But nevertheless, the right to do it must be there. Because if you force a woman to give birth, you are a forced birther, by definition. No buts.

I think that's passively shaming those who have had abortions.

It is also equating pro-choice with pro-abortion.

If you are pro-choice for others, you are also pro-choice for yourself. I do not think it is possible to have exceptions to a pro-choice law only for yourself, so that you can "enjoy" being forced into giving birth while everyone else has a choice.

I mean, sure, you can choose to give birth, but that's still pro-choice. It is only pro-life (or, forced birth, more precisely) if you managed to campaign for a law wherein you are the only woman on earth who is forced to give birth.

Being pro-choice in 99% of cases is more accurately described as pro-choice than against choice.

If you want to hang onto the definition of the word that allows you to keep control of the issue, that's your problem.

Do you have an alternative to pro-choice for those who are something in favour of choice? Surely you can agree that anti -choice would be incorrect?

sometimes not something

Vestal - the woman would have to give birth anyway. A late abortion doesn't work by being magicked away by fairies. Why is it important that she gives birth to a dead infant as opposed to a live one?

I can't quite make all my pro-choice arguments add up in my head.

On the one hand, I think the main argument in favour of abortion on demand is that these abortions will mostly happen anyway, just in less safe ways, as used to happen here (and I assume still does happen in Ireland).

On the other, I really don't like the idea of abortion on demand up to 40 weeks. I think 24 weeks is the right cut-off (and fortunately abortions at this stage are extremely rare). Which isn't compatible with my first view. I think what concerns me are the medical ethics for those involved in the procedure - but is that really for me to judge or society to limit? If the General Medical Council said they were happy to perform late term abortions on demand, and that they found this to be compatible with their medical ethics, perhaps that should be sufficient.

Why is it important that she gives birth to a dead infant as opposed to a live one?

Because it is a form of closure. A live infant who is adopted then grows up. The infant will grow up and wonder where they came from, do they have a right to know? Do you deny the child the right to know or do you inflict on the mother the risk that the child once adult will try to find them?

I thought I was pro-choice. I still believe that every woman has the right to a termination, however my stance on abortions and the rights and wrongs of it all were formed as a young teenager before I really knew anything about it.

I was horrified to learn that you can have an abortion at 40 weeks if your child has a disability - my DSis is a sexual health nurse and I was helping her swot up on the rules surrounding abortion when I came across the termination form which outlines the reasons for termination - she told me that some of the docs who sign the paperwork don't even consult the woman, just sign off on it on the say so of the first doctor.

My dd was born at 38 weeks and was a fully functioning little person - to think I could've aborted her right up until that point and beyond is just so sad.

In summary, I'm not as pro-choice as I thought. I am flawed, I am a human who's experiences have skewed my previously unshakable world view. I still respect the rights of other people to think and do whatever they are able to live with in the full knowledge that there are things I could not live with.

You should also face up to the fact that only a small proportion of the population are or will ever be pro -choice if your definition is so narrow. What word will you allow everyone else to use? Or will you simply try to twist our arms in favour of abortion for any reason at any time by telling people holding a more conservative position that they must be a forced birther and no friend of women?

When a woman carried out her own abortion at seven months, the reaction here mumsnet was vitriolic. As someone who wouldn't personally have an abortion except on health grounds, I was very surprised to be one of the very few who felt that a spell in prison was utterly inappropriate and this was a woman to be helped and pitied.

Such a narrow definition of pro-choice also defines most modern ethics panels as, ludicrously, forced birthers. Because the appalling ethics of aborting a full term baby moments before birth, or of allowing abortions on gender grounds and ending up with a population in which women haven't even been allowed to exist (leading to more women being trafficked in for breeding purposes) are inescapable. If that's what being pro-choice is, it's not even legal and hopefully never will be.

As true as it is that society should change to become a place where women have no need to feel apprehensive about raising a girl or a child with disabilities, that doesn't negate the ethics of what is happening now and the onus on society not to be a place where every vulnerable people group, women included,are selectively bred out of existence.

We are more than individuals. We are also members of communities with a collective responsibility to each other as well as ourselves. That means we each have a responsibility to make choices that will create an inclusive, responsible society in which diversity and the existence of groups other than the ruling elite (ie white male) have the right to exist.

If you are pro-choice to term, how comfortable are you with the hypothetical situation where one doctor is desperately trying to save the life of one foetus/baby while next door another doctor is trying to end the life of another foetus/baby? Say both at 30 weeks gestation for example

I don't see a problem. In both cases the woman is deciding what is going on in her body, and what comes out of it. The first woman wants the dr to help a live baby come out of her, the second woman does not, for whatever reason.
Her body, her choice.

The vast majority of "pro-choice" people seem to mean that within the context of limits, such as 24 weeks or whatever. Those of us who argue for abortion demand without limits seem to be very much in the minority.

We are more than individuals. We are also members of communities with a collective responsibility to each other as well as ourselves. That means we each have a responsibility to make choices that will create an inclusive, responsible society in which diversity and the existence of groups other than the ruling elite (ie white male) have the right to exist.

This. Thank you for putting this so well Gonetosee

Why is it important that she gives birth to a dead infant as opposed to a live one?

Because it completely alters the management of late pregnancy & delivery. I've given birth to both live & dead babies. After my son's intrauterine death I was induced - the only consideration was my welfare & comfort - I had shitloads of drugs for example, which would not have been administered if the fetus was alive since they would've caused it harm. When I gave birth to my alive babies I had interventions that undoubtedly caused me harm (not least being surgical deliveries) in order to ensure the best possible outcome for the fetus.

A pregnancy that is terminated at 37 weeks is going to involve a fetus/baby with massive abnormalities - usually cardiac or neurological -it is not going to be a healthy baby that will thrive in SCBU & go on to a fairytale life.

What about a pregnancy which is terminated at 25 weeks? Should the mother be induced and give birth to a potentially (since it may well not survive birth) living but tiny infant who then will endure enormous suffering being kept alive for as long as their body can withstand in an intensive care cot? Do you have any idea of the outcomes for otherwise healthy babies born at 24/25 weeks?

Should the mother be made to stay pregnant until 28/32/36 weeks when the outcome would be better for otherwise healthy infants - but not those with Patau's, or massive ventriculomegaly, or anencephaly or maybe holoprosencephaly?

I agree with the OP.

I find that the majority of MN users define themselves as pro choice, but often they give advice that strikes me as pro life.

Pregnancy choices is where this can be seen in action. People often post there listing their own 'pros and cons' of continuing a pregnancy, and in almost all cases the advice is so heavily couched against termination that it might as well be 'oh go on, you'll love it when it gets here'.

One example is the oft repeated advice about not having a termination unless you're 100 per cent sure it's the right choice. Nobody puts this burden of proof on continuing a pregnancy.

I often think, looking at someone's circumstances, oh god that's a no brainer. A termination is the best course here. But that's never an ok thing to say is it.

For some people, this will be a very difficult choice, with life long implications. For many others, it's a problem to be dealt with, and has no lasting implications.

I had a termination ages ago and I never think about it. Statistics would suggest that many many thousands of other women have had similar experiences.

Yet it's hard to have a straightforward, factual conversation to that end. We dance around the subject as if it's the biggest deal ever and must involve tears, trauma and doubt.

That's only a fair portrayal in some cases, which I strongly suspect are a minority.

The choice isn't 'do I have a termination or not' it's 'do I have a termination or do I have this baby, with all the issues that would bring'.

I am 100% pro-choice. I don't think a reason needs to be given.

However, I do think the time-limit should be lowered drastically. Most people know they are pregnant by their second missed period. Also having gone through one myself I am sure it becomes more and more distressing as time goes on aswell..I was only 8 weeks. Of course for the limit to be lowered waiting time needs to be lowered too. I knew by 5 weeks and had to wait almost a month...

Time-limit on 'choice' based abortions should be lowered that should say. Obviously there can be medical reasons and such for later abortions.

Hmm thinking about this, does this mean I am actually not pro-choice?

Because it is a form of closure.

2 things. Firstly I'm not sure it would be much "closure" for anyone in that situation. Secondly there are many many many things that people need "closure" for, and they will never get that closure. For example I will never get "closure" from the abuse I suffered in my marriage until my ex dies.

It all boils down to at what point you think the foetus becomes a life. In my opinion, for me, that is when the baby can survive outside the mother. So if the baby can be removed and survive I think that would be the right thing to do.

This is really challenging to think about. I honestly thought I was pro-choice.

I understand that women may want an abortion on demand up to 40 weeks for closure and other reasons, rather than a live birth. Being very honest, I think that at this point, the rights of the viable foetus to live should outweigh the woman's closure needs.

It seems to me like feelings vs life at that point, and I couldn't agree with a change in the law to allow partial birth abortions, at full term, so a woman feels better.

I don't like the idea of being a forced birther, but at this point the woman would have to give birth anyway. To abort a full term child so that the woman can walk away with mental completion seems wrong.

I don't see an argument for reducing the legal time limit, given that viability is still at 23-24 weeks at earliest (and many women don't know they're pregnant for quite a while - particularly if they're young or in difficult circumstances).

I'd like to see the law changed to allow abortion on demand up to 24 weeks, but deriding those of us who are uncomfortable with viable foetuses being aborted as not pro-choice is not terribly constructive. Why not focus on more realistic and achievable changes to abortion legislation?

I am 100% pro-choice. I don't think a reason needs to be given/ However, I do think the time-limit should be lowered drastically

How can you call yourself 100% pro-choice when you think that choice should be removed at any particular point? Especially when you want that point to come much earlier? Thats not 100% pro choice. Thats "pro-choice" if you are quick enough and no choice at all if you aren't".

Those saying girls who would have been aborted are just killed anyway are overstating things to make the issue go away. Sometimes, sadly, this happens. But not with the inevitability or frequency that is being suggested (unless someone can show otherwise) and in any case, the answer there is not to just kill the girls earlier but to continue the work that's being already done in relation to infanticide and the law.

In such societies, women are unlikely to be the people choosing whether to have an abortion or not and it could be argued that making gender selective abortion available in the type of society that would want gender selection is simply giving men an easy way to interfere with the bodies of pregnant women. One could argue that they would be less likely to force an abortion on their wife if they didn't know the gender, or if nothing could be done about the knowledge.

There is absolutely no question that genet selective abortion has made it exponentially easier to do away with a generation of women and people with DS and has created the option of preferentially raising boys for many men who might have accepted their daughters.

It's a bit like getting a car. You still have the option of walking like you did before (ie having a girl) but why would you, when it's become so easy to drive.

I don't think all abortions would happen anyway. If euthanasia was legal I would 100% not be here today but I couldn't bring myself to do it the traditional way.

I understand the viewpoint of making induction a choice but I cannot agree with letting a baby die.

My major concern would be the mental state of a woman who wanted an abortion so late. I really don't think anyone in a mentally stable place would choose this. Who's to say those young mothers or rape victims in denial wouldn't regret their decision later on?

but deriding those of us who are uncomfortable with viable foetuses being aborted as not pro-choice is not terribly constructive

It's not deriding you its a discussion about terminology. Is "pro-choice until you feel uncomfortable about one choice over another" really pro-choice? At best its limited pro-choice.
That isn't attacking your opinion, its disagreeing with the terminology you use to describe it.

Bertrand, I am uncomfortable with you creating a taat in a forum where you presumably believe you will get more support. I was on the SP thread and was annoyed that you - and others- were insinuating I couldn't be pro-choice because I agree with the current law (despite having terminated myself with no fuss and no regrets at 21).

Seems like you have come here to recruit more ammunition. I think it should be let go - there are shades of grey and I don't think you can hijack the term pro-choice. It seems so so important for you to be "right". I am and always will be pro-choice within the current legal framework and am fed up of being told I am not.