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.

The fact is in most of the UK abortion is illegal unless you have two doctors agree that you need one

Has this changed pretty recently or has it always been like this? As I went to drop in centre (was 16). I was booked in for 3 weeks time on the day, after seeing only one person. Also to make matters worse I was supposed to see a psychiatrist before doing anything to make sure the decision was actually right for me..and the psychiatrist was off that day and they pushed ahead with the first pill anyway..possibly to stop me taking up a further appointment I don't think I would have changed my mind but it would have been nice to have some kind of support. I got nothing afterwards either.

By which I mean it seems you are not interested in debate really. Just to be told that your version is the correct one.

For me, the logical conclusion of being pro-choice and supporting women's bodily autonomy is that a woman can have an abortion at any point because she has decided for whatever reason that she doesn't want to have a baby. It's not an easy stance to take but the alternative is that women do not have full control over their own bodies.

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".

Yes fair point. This thread has actually made me think about my views a lot actually. I always considered myself to be pro-choice but I realise now I am not..not completely anyway. I didn't realise there were people who actually held the view that a baby/fetus should be able to be terminated at any time, even up to full term, for any reason. Yes, I am definitely not one of those..

Laniakea - sorry, I was trying to keep disabilities off this thread. I know as law currently stands only abortions for disabilities are allowed so late. It's when people are talking about aborting healthy foetuses up to term that I'm not in favour of.

My own personal experience of early births is that I have family members who were born early. One has a health problem that required surgery and will require further surgery. The earliest one still has medication on a daily basis but is probably too young to tell if there's going to be any major problems. 3 others have no problems but were born between 32 & 36 weeks.

No I don't think anyone should be made to "hang on". The doctor should make the decision there and then what the best outcome for all concerned would be.

I was trying to think of a "halfway house" between "forced birth" and "pro-choice".

Which is fine bird. However ethics committees have disagreed - so don't say I am not pro-choice because I agree with the current limits.

I just think if you're going to start a thread stating "within the law" it would be helpful to have a clear idea of what the current law actually is.

Bertrand hadn't answered me on that 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?

That's all a pretty weak argument. All of that applies in adoptions.

I have no issues at all with abortion being legal on the basis it is in the UK - up to 24 weeks and then later if circumstances justify it

I am very uncomfortable with the anti-abortion stance that abortion is never acceptable or at the other extreme abortion to term with no need for a reason is acceptable. Both of those are actually more logical than my own stance but so be it. I don't wish to support either.

I'm pro choice. For me that means that a woman should be able to terminate up until the baby is born. When the baby is born it become a person with rights. Before it is born it does not have rights but the woman does.

If we draw a line somewhere how do we decide. If it is the point when a foetus can live outside the womb then do we make exceptions for women who have been raped and take longer to accept their situation, young girls who are scared and try to hide it etc. A baby at 24 weeks is surely very unlikely to survive without medical intervention so do women have the choice to refuse intervention?

Once we put limits on anything we create grey areas and I think the right to autonomy over your own body should be black and white.

"Is "pro-choice until you feel uncomfortable about one choice over another" really pro-choice? At best its limited pro-choice."

Pretty much all choice is limited to some extent; I know there are people who support abortion on demand in any circumstances (including sex-selective) and at any time in gestation, but even they would have to concede that the pregnant woman in question would need access to gynaecological care for the abortion to be carried out. Would they require all doctors to carry out late-term abortions? What about the doctor's choice?

I suppose my frustration really is that this discussion so often seems to focus around this issue of whether late term abortions (which are very rare anyway) should be legal, rather than looking at all the other ways in which we could improve women's control over their reproduction.

Btw - as I stated before - am I pro life? Despite having had an abortion for no reason other than that I wanted one?

I don't having a go at the opinion itself, I understand it though don't share it. We do need to talk about the terms we use though, its important to understand what we mean by the labels we use.

I didn't realise there were people who actually held the view that a baby/fetus should be able to be terminated at any time, even up to full term, for any reason

I can't speak for anyone else but my belief is that we don't need a law to tell us what we can and can't do here. I believe that the amount of women who would actually choose to terminate at a very late stage would be vanishingly small, especially if we made early access to abortion easier and quicker. Also that very few doctors would be willing to do such procedures anyway. I think it wouldn't actually be a thing that happened in practice, apart from as now in the case of severe problems with the pregnancy. I have a moral objection to a law that regulates it as if we wouldn't self regulate ourselves.

I agree with Cedricsneer. It's clear this is a TAAT. Because Bertrand didn't get what they wanted on the other thread.

I already don't have full control and autonomy of my body and I'm not pregnant. I'm entering early menopause and my body is doing its own thing. I can't stop it. I know being pregnant is different, but it is still biology, and sometimes the terminology in these discussions confuses me.

How can we have 100% autonomy of our own bodies when biology plods on regardless. And if we make the decision to abort, we are reliant upon the medical profession to provide the pills or medical interventions to end the pregnancy. We are asking others to intercede in a process that we cannot to alone, so how is that 100% autonomy if we need others to help make our choices reality? Or am I misunderstanding? It's always puzzled me.

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

I'm sorry that does not actually have to be true.

My daughter was born with no cardiac or neurological issues, she has never seen an SCBU - she does however have an extra chromosome and thinks she's a princess.

I could have terminated her up to 40 weeks. I can't think about that for too long.

I don't mean to derail the thread but I couldn't leave that unsaid.

Eh? Why can't a baby survive at 37 weeks with no medical help?

Ds did. He was born at 37+ 3. Perfectly healthy. Just a bit small

so how is that 100% autonomy if we need others to help make our choices reality?

Autonomy is about being able to make the choices that one can affect. You can choose to take medicines to alleviate the effects of menopause, just as someone can choose to have an abortion. It doesn't matter that we might need help to make those things a reality, if they are possible and available but a law stops us from using them.

*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

I'm sorry that does not actually have to be true.

My daughter was born with no cardiac or neurological issues, she has never seen an SCBU - she does however have an extra chromosome and thinks she's a princess.*

You didn't have a termination, so your dd is irrelavant to the point the pp made. I think you misunderstood it entirely.

I have a moral objection to a law that regulates it as if we wouldn't self regulate ourselves

Why bother with any regulation in any sphere then?

Why bother with any regulation in any sphere then?

Most regulation isn't to do with what I can do with my own body, is it?

Personally, I'm pro-choice up to full term.

Generally, I think it's reasonable to consider yourself pro-choice if you agree with abortion up until the foetus is viable.

Totally unfair to call this taat. The other thread was for support, not for discussing termination.

You can't say 'get off our thread if you want to discuss that. But don't actually start another thread either'.

User - I see what you are saying, I think. It's just that we can't demand other forms of medical intervention, it has to be down to the medics involved.

As abortion is a medical procedure, I don't understand why some object to having two Drs consent and the medics putting rules in place. We need them to help us abort. It's surely up to them to make sure this is medically appropriate.

And no Dr is going to think that aborting a healthy, viable foetus at term, is medically appropriate. So how can we demand it? And why would the medics be unreasonable in refusing? I don't get it

I suppose my frustration really is that this discussion so often seems to focus around this issue of whether late term abortions (which are very rare anyway) should be legal, rather than looking at all the other ways in which we could improve women's control over their reproduction

Yes and not being in favour of abortion to term makes you a "forced birther" on a par as say the current Polish government.

Morris - I agree.